^  PRINCETON.    N.    J.  <f^ 


Presented  by  Mr  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


Agjiezv  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No 


foiiL 


PRESBYTERIANISM 


THE 


TRULY  PRIMITIVE 


APOSTOLICAL  CONSTITUTION 


OF    THE 


CHURCH  OF  CHRIST. 


By   SAMUEL-illLLER,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR   OF   ECCLESIASTICAL   HISTORY  AND  CHURCH   GOVERNMENT  IN  THE 
THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY   AT   PRINCETON',    NEW    JERSEY. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN    BOARD    OF    PUBLICATION 

JAMES   RDSSELL,   PUBLISHING   AGENT. 

1840. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 

THIS  Manual  has  been  prepared  at  the  particular  request  of  the  Tract  Society  of 
the  Synod  of  Philadelphia.  A  polemical  spirit  in  the  Church  of  God  is  by  no  means 
commendable.  And  even  when  different  denominations  of  professing  Christians  are 
compelled,  either  in  public  teaching,  or  in  social  intercourse,  to  recur  to  the  points 
in  regard  to  which  they  differ,  it  ought  ever  to  be  done  with  as  much  mildness  and 
inoffensiveness  as  can  be  reconciled  with  fidelity.  It  is  doing  no  more  than  justice 
to  Presbyterians  to  say,  that  they  have  ever  been  remarkable  for  their  freedom  from 
a  proselyting  spirit.  Assuredly,  there  is  no  denomination  of  Christians  in  the  Uni- 
ted Stales,  from  whose  pulpits  so  little  is  heard  of  the  nature  of  vaunting  their  own 
claims,  or  impugning  the  peculiarities  of  others,  as  in  those  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Seldom  is  a  sentence  uttered  in  their  public  assemblies  adapted  to  invade 
the  tenets  of  any  evangelical  Christian  ;  almost  never,  indeed,  unless  in  defending 
themselves  against  the  attacks  of  other  denominations. 

In  the  meanwhile,  several  other  numerous  and  respectable  denominations  habitu- 
ally act  on  a  different  policy.  Their  preaching,  their  ecclesiastical  journals,  and 
their  popular  Tracts,  are  characteristically  and  strongly  sectarian.  Of  this  no 
complaint  is  made.  We  live  in  a  free  country,  where  all  denominations,  in  the  eye 
of  the  civil  government,  stand  upon  a  level.  May  it  ever  continue  to  be  so!  ilut 
there  is  a  point,  beyond  which  silence  in  respect  to  our  peculiarities,  may  be  cen- 
surable. We  are  bound  to  defend  ourselves  against  unscriptural  attacks,  not  merely 
for  our  own  sakes,  but  for  the  sake  of  others.  It  is  incumbent  on  us  to  show  to  those 
within  our  pale,  or  who  may  be  inclined  to  unite  with  us,  that  we  "  have  not  followed 
cunningly  devised  fables." 

This,  and  this  only,  is  the  design  of  the  following  Manual.  It  is  not  intended  to 
invade  the  precincts,  or  assail  the  members  of  other  religious  communities;  but 
solely  for  the  instruction  of  Presbyterians ;  and  to  satisfy  them  that  the  system  by 
which  they  are  distinguished,  is,  throughout,  truly  primitive  and  apostolic.  Inqui- 
ries are  frequently  made  by  young  people  and  others  of  our  denomination,  why  we 
differ,  as  to  a  variety  of  particulars,  from  some  other  churches.  Is  it  wrong;  can  it 
be  deemed  inconsistent  with  the  most  scrupulous  Christian  charity,  and  even  deli- 
cacy, to  provide  a  manual  adapted  to  answer  these  inquiries?  Surely,  this  is  a 
debt  which  we  owe  to  our  children.  And  as  Presbyterian  ministers  are  seldom 
heard  to  preach  on  the  peculiarities  by  which  our  beloved  and  truly  scriptural 
Church  is  distinguished,  there  seems  to  be  the  more  propriety  in  putting  into  the 
hands  of  our  youthful  and  less  instructed  members,  a  summary  "of  the  arguments  by 
which  they  may  be  enabled  to  meet  the  attacks,  and  repel  the  insinuations,  of  those 
unwearied  worshippers  of  sect,  who  cease  not  to  insist  that  they  alone  are  entitled 
to  the  character  of  true  Churches. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1835,  by  Dr.  A.  W. 
Mitchell,  in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court,  of  the  Eastern  District  of 
Pennsylvania. 


PRESBYTERIANISMr  V 


CHAPTER  I. 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 


*^..r 


The  Church  of  God,  in  the  days  of  the  Apostles,  as  is 
well  known,  was  not  divided  into  different  denominations. 
Even  then,  indeed,  there  were  parties  in  the  Church.  The 
restless  and  selfish  spirit  of  depraved  human  nature  s^oon 
began,  in  different  places  to  display  its  unhallowed  influence, 
either  in  the  form  of  judaizing  claims,  philosophical  specula- 
tions, or  turbulent  opposition  to  regular  ecclesiastical  autho- 
rity. In  the  Church  of  Corinth,  though  planted  and  nur- 
tured by  "  the  chiefest  of  the  Apostles,"  there  were  factious 
and  troublesome  members,  who  contended  among  themselves, 
and  said,  one  to  another,  "  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Apollos, 
and  I  of  Cephas,  and  I  of  Christ."  Still  the  Church  was 
one.  The  names,  "  Presbyterian,"  "Episcopalian,"  "  Con- 
gregationalist,"  &;c.  &c.,  were  unknown.  All  professing 
Christians,  "  though  many,  were  considered  as  one  body  in 
Christ,  and  every  one  members  one  of  another.'  The  only 
popular  distinction  then  recognised,  as  far  as  the  professed 
followers  of  Christ  were  concerned,  was  between  the  Church 
and  the  heretics. 

Not  long  after  the  Apostolic  age,  when  heresies  had  become 
numerous,  when  each  of  them  claimed  to  belong  to  the  Church, 
and  when  convenience  demanded  the  adoption  of  some  term 
which  might  distinguish  between  the  true  or  orthodox  Church, 
and  the  various  sects  of  errorists — the  title  of  Catholic  (or  ge- 
neral, as  the  term  Catholic  signifies,)  was  applied  to  the 
former ;  while  the  latter  were  distinguished  by  various  names, 
derived  either  from  the  nature  of  their  distinguishing  opinions, 


6  INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

or  from  the  original  authors  or  promoters  of  those  opinions. 
It  is  well  known,  indeed,  that  the  blinded  and  superstitious 
followers  of  the  Bishop  of  Rome  claim  the  title  of  Catholic, 
as  exclusively  apphcable  to  themselves.  In  their  own  estima- 
tion, they  are  the  Church,  the  only  true  Church,  the  Catholic, 
or  universal  Church ;  and  all  the  other  classes  of  nominal 
Christians,  throughout  the  world,  are  heretics,  out  of  the  way 
of  salvation.  This  claim,  however,  in  the  estimation  of  all 
enlightened  Christians,  is  as  presumptuous  as  it  is  vain.  That 
department  of  nominal  Christendom,  instead  of  being  the  only 
true  Church,  is  considered  by  many  as  too  far  gone  in  cor- 
ruption to  be  comprehended  under  the  Christian  name  at  all ; 
and  instead  of  there  bemg  no  salvation  out  of  her  communion, 
the  danger  of  eternal  perdition  is  rather  to  those  who  are 
found  within  her  pale.  It  is  not  doubted,  indeed,  that  there 
are  many  pious  individuals  within  that  pale ;  but  it  is  believed 
that  they  are  placed  in  circumstances  deplorably  unfavourable 
to  their  growth  in  grace  ;  and  that  the  multitudes  around  them, 
in  the  same  communion,  are  immersed  in  darkness,  supersti- 
tion, and  dreadful  error,  which  place  them  in  the  utmost 
jeopardy  of  eternal  perdition.  This  is  that  "  Antichrist," 
that  "  Man  of  sin,"  and  "  Son  of  Perdition,"  who  exalteth 
himself  above  all  that  is  called  God,  and  who  is  yet  to  be  "  de- 
stroyed with  the  breath  of  Jehovah's  mouth,  and  with  the 
brightness  of  his  coming." 

No  particular  denomination  of  Christians  is  now  entitled  to 
be  called,  by  way  of  eminence,  the  Catholic,  or  universal 
Church.  There  are  Churches,  indeed,  which  bear  a  nearer 
resemblance  to  the  Apostolical  model  than  others  ;  and  which 
deserve  to  be  favourably  distinguished  in  the  list  of  Christian 
communities.  But  the  visible  Catholic  Church  is  made  up  of  all 
those  throughout  the  world,  who  profess  the  true  religion,  to- 
gether with  their  children.  The  Presbyterian,  the  Congre- 
gationahst,  the  Methodist,  the  Baptist,  the  Episcopalian,  the 
Independent,  who  hold  the  fundamentals  of  our  holy  rehgion, 
in  whatever  part  of  the  globe  they  may  reside,  are  all  mem- 
bers of  the  same  visible  community  ;  and,  if  they  be  sincere 
believers,  will  all  finally  be  made  partakers  of  its  eternal 
blessings.  They  cannot,  indeed,  all  worship  together  in 
the  same  solemn  assembly,  even  if  they  were  disposed  to 
do  so.  A  physical  impossibility  forbids  it;  and,  in  many 
cases,  prejudice  and  folly  widely  separate  those  who  ought  to 
be  entirely  united.  Still,  in  spite  of  all  the  sects  and  names 
by  which  professing  Christians  are  divided,  there  is  a  visible 
Church  Catholic.     There  is  a  precious  sense  in  which  the 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  7 

whole  visible  Church  on  earth  is  one.  All  who  "  hold  the 
Head,"  of  course  belong  to  the  body  of  Christ.  Those  who 
are  united  by  a  sound  profession  to  the  same  divine  Saviour ; 
who  embrace  the  same  precious  faith  ;  who  are  sanctified  by 
the  same  spirit ;  who  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat ;  who  drink 
the  same  spiritual  drink  ;  who  repose  and  rejoice  in  the  same 
promises  ;  and  who  are  travelling  to  the  same  eternal  rest — 
are  surely  one  body : — one  in  a  sense  more  richly  significant 
and  valuable  than  can  be  ascribed  to  miUions  who  sustain  and 
boast  a  mere  nominal  relation. 

But  while  we  thus  maintain  the  doctrine  of  the  unity  of 
the  visible  Church  CathoHc ;  and  while  we  rejoice  in  the 
assured  belief,  that  sectarian  names,  as  they  were  unknown 
in  the  Apostohc  age,  so  they  will  be  unknown  among  the 
members  of  the  Redeemer's  glorified  body  ;  still,  in  this  mili- 
tant state,  there  is  a  separation,  not  merely  nominal,  but  real 
and  deplorable ;  a  separation  which  interferes  most  deeply 
with  the  communion  of  saints,  and  which  lamentably  mars 
those  precious  opportunities  of  proximity  and  intercourse, 
which  too  often,  alas  !  become  incentives  to  contention  and 
strife,  rather  than  to  Christian  love. 

Amidst  this  diversity  of  sects  and  names,  it  becomes,  to 
every  intelligent  and  conscientious  Christian,  a  most  interesting 
question — Which  of  the  various  denominations  which  bear  the 
name  of  Christian  Churches,  maybe  considered  as  approaching 
nearest  to  the  New  Testament  model  ?  We  freely  acknowledge, 
indeed,  as  Churches  of  Christ,  all  who  hold  the  fundamentals 
of  our  holy  rehgion,  and  consider  it  as  our  duty  to  love  and 
honour  them  as  such  ;  carefully  avoiding  all  treatment  of  them 
that  tends  to  the  increase  of  strife  and  division,  and  that  is  con- 
trary to  "  godly  edifying."  Still,  it  cannot  be  doubted,  by  any 
rational  man,  that  some  one  of  these  denominations  is  nearer 
to  the  Apostolic  model,  as  a  Church  of  Christ,  than  any  of  the 
rest.  Which  of  the  whole  number  this  is,  is  a  most  serious 
question  in  the  view  of  every  one  who  wishes  to  know  the. 
will  of  Christ,  and  who  desires  to  be  found  walking  in  that 
way  which  was  trod  by  inspired  Apostles,  and  in  which  they 
left  the  Church  harmoniously  walking,  when  they  ceased 
from  their  labours. 

It  is  the  sincere  beUef  of  the  writer  of  these  pages,  that 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  as  it  now  exists  in  these  United 
States,  entirely  unconnected  with  the  civil  government,  and 
taking  the  word  of  God  as  its  "  only  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice,"  is  more  truly  primitive  and  apostohcal  in  its 
whole  constitution,  of  doctrine^  worship,  and  order,  than  any 
1* 


8  INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS. 

Other  Church,  now  on  earth.     An  humble  attempt  to  evince 
the  truth  of  this  position,  will  occupy  the  following  pages. 

For  the  fulfilment  of  the  purpose  in  view,  I  shall  endeavour, 
very  briefly,  to  consider  the  History  of  Presbyterianism ;  its 
doctrme,  its  order,  ov  form  of  government ;  its  worship  ;  and 
its  comparative  advantages.  In  each  of  these  respects,  unless 
I  am  deceived,  it  will  be  easy  to  show  that  it  approaches 
nearer  than  any  other  Christian  denomination,  to  the  Apos- 
tolical model. 


To  prepare  the  way  more  fuhy  for  the  ensuing  discussion, 
it  may  be  proper  to  .state,  that  there  are  four  distinct  forms  of 
Church  order,  each  of  which  claims  a  scriptural  warrant ;  the 
Papal,  or  spiritual  monarchy — ^the  Episcopal,  or  spiritual ;}re- 
lacy — Independency,  or  spiritual  democracy — and  Presbyte- 
rianism, or  spiritual  republicanism.  The  first  maintaining 
the  necessity  of  one  supreme,  universal,  infallible  Head  of  the 
whole  Christian  body  throughout  the  world,  as  the  authorised 
vicar  of  Christ.  The  second,  contending  for  an  order  of  cleri- 
cal prelates,  above  the  rank  of  ordinary  ministers  of  the  Gos- 
pel, who  are  alone,  in  their  view,  empowered  to  ordain,  and 
without  whose  presiding  agency,  there  can  be  no  regular 
Church.  The  third,  holding  that  aU  ecclesiastical  power  re- 
sides in  the  mass  of  the  Church  members,  and  that  all  acts  of 
ecclesiastical  authority  are  to  be  performed  immediately  by 
them.  While  in  the  fourth  and  last  place,  Presbyterians  be- 
lieve, that  Christ  has  made  all  ministers  who  are  authorised 
to  dispense  the  word  and  sacraments,  perfectly  equal  in  official 
rank  and  power :  that  in  every  Church  the  immediate  exer- 
cise of  ecclesiastical  power  is  deposited,  not  with  the  whole 
mass  of  the  people,  but  with  a  body  of  their  representatives, 
styled  Elders  ;  and  that  the  whole  visible  Church  Catholic,  so 
far  as  their  denomination  is  concerned,  is  not  only  one  in  name, 
but  so  united  by  a  series  of  assembUes  of  these  representa- 
tives, acting  in  the  name,  and  by  the  authority  of  the  whole, 
as  to  bind  the  whole  body  together  as  one  Church,  walking 
by  the  same  principles  of  faith  and  order,  and  voluntarily,  yet 
authoritatively  governed  by  the  same  system  of  rule  and  regu- 
lation. 

Presbyterianism,  then,  is  a  term  which  primarily  refers  to 
the  form  of  Church  government.  Tliat  is  a  Presbyterian 
Church,  in  which  the  Presbytery  is  the  radical  and  leading 
judicatory ;  in  which  Teaching  and  Ruling  Presbyters  or  El- 
ders, have  committed  to  them  the  watch  and  care  of  the  whole 


INTRODUCTORY  REMARKS.  9 

flock  ;  in  which  all  ministers  of  the  word  and  sacraments  are 
equal ;  in  which  Ruling  Elders,  as  the  representatives  of  the 
people,  form  a  part  of  aU  ecclesiastical  assemblies,  and  par- 
take, in  all  authoritative  acts,  equally  with  the  Teaching  El- 
ders ;  and  ui  which,  by  a  series  of  judicatories,  rising  one 
above  another,  each  individual  church  is  under  the  watch  and 
care  of  its  appropriate  judicatory,  and  the  whole  body,  by  a 
system  of  review  and  control,  is  bound  together  as  one  homO' 
geneous  community.  Wherever  this  system  is  found  in  ope 
ration  in  the  Church  of  God,  there  is  Presbyterianism 
Though  there  may  be  much  diversity  in  the  names  of  the  seve 
ral  judicatories  ;  and  though,  in  the  minuter  details  of  arrange 
ment,  some  variety  may  exist,  still  it  is  essentially  the  same 
Thus  the  Reformed  Churches  in  France,  Holland,  Germany 
Switzerland,  Scotland,  and  Geneva,  are  all  Presbyterian,  not 
withstanding  some  minor  varieties  in  the  names  and  regula^ 
tions  of  their  judicatories.  Wherever  ministerial  parity 
the  government  of  the  church  by  Elders,  instead  of  the  mass 
of  the  communicants  ;  and  the  authoritative  union  of  churches 
under  courts  of  review  and  control,  are  found,  there  we  have 
that  ecclesiastical  system  which  it  is  the  object  of  the  follow- 
ing pages  to  explain  and  recommend. 

But  although  the  term  Presbyterian  has  a  primary  reference 
to  the  form  of  Church  government ;  yet  Presbyterian  Churches 
were  originally  agreed,  and  have  been  commonly,  in  all  ages 
agreed,  in  a  variety  of  other  matters,  which  we  believe  are  all 
warranted  by  the  Holy  Scriptures.  It  is  to  the  whole  system, 
then,  of  doctrine,  government,  and  mode  of  worship,  which 
now  distinguishes  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States,  that  the  attention  of  the  readers  of  these  pages  is  re- 
quested ;  and  which,  it  shall  be  my  aim  to  show,  is  set  forth 
in  the  W^ord  of  God,  "the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice." 


CHAPTER  n. 

HISTORY   OF    PRESBYTERIANISM. 

The  essential  principles  of  Presbyterian  Church  order  were 
of  very  early  origin.  Those  principles  are  the  authoritative 
binding  of  the  whole  Church  together  as  one  body  ;  and  con- 
ducting this  government,  not  by  the  entire  ecclesiastical  popu 


10  HISTORY  OF 

lation,  but  by  representatives,  elected  by,  and  acting  on  behal! 
of  the  whole.  That  this  mode  of  administering  tJie  affairs  of 
the  visible  Church  was  adopted  long  before  the  coming  of 
Christ,  is  certain,  and  can  be  doubted  by  none  who  intelligent- 
ly and  impartially  read  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures.  Even 
before  the  institution  of  the  ceremonial  economy,  while  the 
covenanted  people  of  God  were  yet  in  bondage  in  Egypt,  we 
find  that  they  had  their  Elders,  that  is,  their  men  of  gravity, 
experience  and  wisdom,  who  were  obeyed  as  heads  of  tribes, 
and  rulers  among  the  people.  Exodus  iii.  16.  The  powers 
committed  to  them,  and  exercised  by  them,  are  not  particularly 
specified  ;  but  we  may  take  for  granted,  with  confidence,  that 
their  office  was  to  inspect  and  govern  the  people,  and  to  ad- 
just all  disputes  both  of  a  civil  and  ecclesiastical  nature.  Be- 
fore the  publication  of  the  law  from  Mount  Sinai,  and  anterior 
to  the  establishment  of  the  ceremonial  economy,  Moses  chose 
wise  and  able  men  out  of  the  tribes  of  Israel,  made  them  rulers 
over  thousands,  over  hundreds,  over  fifties,  and  over  tens.  Ex- 
odus xviii.  These  rulers  are  elsewhere,  in  almost  every  part 
of  the  Old  Testament,  styled  Elders.  To  them,  as  we  are  ex- 
pressly informed,  all  the  ordinary  cases  of  government  and  dis- 
cipline were  committed.  The  same  mode  of  dispensmg  jus- 
tice and  order  among  the  people,  seems  to  have  been  employed 
after  the  institution  of  the  Aaronic  priesthood ;  during  the 
time  of  the  Judges,  and  of  the  Kings  ;  during  the  Babylonish 
captivity ;  and  after  the  return  of  the  captives  from  Babylon. 
At  whatever  time  the  Synagogue  system  was  adopted,  it  is 
evident  that  the  plan  of  conducting  government  by  means  of 
a  body  of  Elders,  was  universal,  through  all  the  land  of  Judea, 
up  to  the  time  of  the  Saviour's  advent.  The  synagogues  were 
the  parish  churches  of  the  Jews.  There  the  ordinary  worship 
and  mstruction  of  the  Sabbath  were  conducted  ;  and  the  ex- 
communication of  an  individual  from  the  body  of  the  profess- 
ing people  of  God,  was  expressed  by  "  putting  him  out  of  the 
synagogue."  In  these  synagogues  the  essential  principles  of 
Presbyterianism  were  universally  established.  The  similari- 
ty, as  to  every  important  point,  was  exact.  In  short,  during 
the  whole  tract  of  time  embraced  in  the  history  of  the  Mosaic 
economy,  we  have  complete  evidence  that  the  ecclesiastical 
government,  as  well  as  the  civil,  was  conducted,  under  God,  the 
Supreme  Ruler,  by  boards  of  Elders,  acting  as  the  authorized 
representatives  of  the  people.  To  this  mode  of  government,  as 
is  notorious,  every  city,  and  every  synagogue  was  accustomed. 
In  no  instance,  in  either  Church  or  State,  is  a  case  recollected 
in  which  the  population  was  called  together  to  settle  a  dispute, 


PRESBYTERIANISM.  1 1 

or  to  dispense  justice  between  persons  at  variance.  The  re- 
presentative system  was  universally  in  use.  The  work  of 
administering  justice  was  always  done  by  a  body  of  rulers  or 
officers,  commonly  styled,  amidst  all  the  changes  of  dispensa- 
tion, "  Elders  of  the  people." 

Nor  was  this  all.  As  each  particular  synagogue  was  go- 
verned by  a  bench  of  Elders,  of  which  the  Bishop  or  "  Angel 
of  the  Church,"  was  the  presiding  officer ;  so  also,  as  the  whole 
Jewish  body  was  one  ; — one  Catholic  Church, — there  were 
always  appeals  admitted,  in  cases  of  alleged  incorrectness  of 
judgment,  to  the  "  great  synagogue"  at  Jerusalem,  where  an 
opportunity  was  given  for  redressing  what  was  done  amiss. 
Nothing  like  the  independency  of  particular  synagogues  was 
admitted  or  thought  of.  A  system  which  bound  the  whole 
community  together  as  one  visible  professing  body,  was  uni- 
formly in  operation. 

The  first  converts  to  Christianity  being  all  native  Jews,  who 
had  been  always  accustomed  to  the  exercise  of  government 
by  benches  of  *'  Elders,"  in  the  manner  just  specified ;  and 
this  representative  plan  being  so  equitable,  so  wise,  and  so 
convenient  in  itself;  no  wonder  that  the  same  plan  was  adopt- 
ed by  the  apostles  in  organizing  the  primitive  Church.  Ac- 
cordingly, as  in  the  account  which  the  inspired  writers  give 
of  the  Jewish  constitution,  we  read  continually  of  the  "  Rulers 
of  the  synagogue,"  and  of  the  "  Elders  of  the  people,"  as  a 
body  distinguished  from  the  priests  ;  so,  when  they  proceed 
to  give  us  an  account  of  the  organization  and  proceedings  of 
the  New  Testament  Church,  we  find  the  same  language  used 
in  cases  almost  innumerable.  We  read  of  "  Elders  being  or- 
dained in  every  church ;"  of  an  important  question  being  re- 
ferred to  a  synod,  made  up  of  "  Apostles  and  Elders  ;"  of  "  El- 
ders who  ruled  well,  but  did  not  labour  in  the  word  and  doc- 
trine ;"  of  the  "  Elders  of  the  Church  being  called  together" 
to  consider  ecclesiastical  questions  ;  of  the  "  Elders  of  the 
Church  being  called  for  to  visit  and  pray  over  the  sick,"  &c. 

The  question,  whether  the  exact  mode  of  conducting  the 
government  and  discipline  of  the  Church,  which  we  find  de- 
lineated in  the  New  Testament,  is  obligatory  on  Christians 
now,  is  one  concerning  which  there  is  no  small  diversity  of 
opinion.  That  an  entire  confonnity  to  that  model,  in  every 
minute  particular,  is  essential  to  the  existence  of  the  Church, 
will  be  maintained  by  few ;  and  certainly  by  no  Presbyterians. 
None  can  doubt,  however,  that  it  is  most  expedient  and  safe 
to  keep  as  near  as  may  be  to  that  plan  of  Church  order,  which 
inspired  men  approved  and  left  in  use,  when  they  ceased  from 


12  HISTORY  OF 

their  labours.  As  to  what  that  plan  was,  it  would  reaUy  seem 
almost  impossible  that  intelligent  and  impartial  readers  of  the 
New  Testament  should  entertain  different  opinions.  The 
moment  we  open  the  inspired  history  of  the  apostolic  age,  we 
find  a  style  of  speaking  concerning  the  officers  of  the  Church, 
and  a  statement  of  facts,  which  evince,  beyond  all  controversy, 
that  the  model  of  the  synagogue  was  that  which  was  then 
adopted,  and  which  was  left  in  universal  use  when  inspired 
men  surrendered  the  Church  to  their  successors.  We  find 
preaching  the  Gospel,  "  feeding  the  sheep  and  the  lambs"  of 
Christ,  and  administering  the  Christian  sacraments,  the  high- 
est offices  entrusted  to  the  Ministers  of  Christ.  We  find  a 
plurality  of  "  Elders,"  by  divine  direction,  ordained  in  every 
church.  In  no  instance,  in  the  whole  New  Testament,  do  we 
find  an  organized  congregation  under  the  Avatch  and  care  of  a 
single  officer.  Further,  we  find  "  Bishop"  and  "  Elder," 
titles  given,  interchangeably,  to  the  same  persons ;  plainly 
showing  that  the  term  "  Bishop,"  in  the  apostolic  age,  was 
the  title  which  designated  the  pastor  or  "  overseer,"  of  a  sin- 
gle flock  or  church.  We  find  in  the  New  Testament  history, 
no  trace  of  prelacy.  All  priority  or  pre-eminence  among  the 
ministers  of  Christ  is  expressly  rebuked  and  forbidden. 
There  is  evidently  but  one  commission  given  to  the  author- 
ized ministers  of  the  word  and  sacraments.  When  the  Saviour 
left  the  world  he  commissioned  no  higher  officer  in  his 
Church,  speaks  of  no  higher  than  he  who  was  empowered  to 
go  forth  and  "  teach  aU  nations,  baptizing  them  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  The 
ordaining  power  is  manifestly  represented  as  possessed  and 
exercised  by  ordinary  pastors,  and  as  performed  by  the  "  lay- 
ing on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery."  There  is  not  a  soli- 
tary instance  to  be  found  in  all  the  New  Testament,  of  an  or- 
dination being  performed  by  a  single  individual,  whether  an 
ordinary,  or  extraordinary  minister.  In  all  the  cases  which 
we  find  recorded,  or  hinted  at,  a  plurality  of  ordainers  offi- 
ciated. When  Paul  and  Barnabas  were  designated  to  a  spe- 
cial mission,  it  was  by  a  plurality  of  "  Prophets  and  Teachers 
of  the  Church  in  Antioch,"  Acts  xiii.  When  they  went  forth 
to  preach  and  organise  churches,  we  are  informed  that  they 
together,  "  ordained  Elders  in  every  church."  Timothy  was 
ordained  by  the  "  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery." 
1  Tim.  iv.  14.  And  even  when  the  Deacons  were  set  apart 
to  their  office,  it  is  plain,  from  the  narrative,  Acts  vi.  1 — 6 
that  a  plurahty  laid  hands  upon  them  with  prayer  and  fasting. 
It  is  plain  too,  that  the  whole  visible  Church,  in  the  apostolic 


PRESBYTERIANISM.  13 

•^.ge,  whether  in  Jerusalem  or  in  Antioch,  in  PhUippi  or  in 
Ephesus,  was  regarded  as  one  body.,  all  governed  by  the  same 
laws,  subject  to  the  same  authority,  and  regulated  by  the  same 
judicial  decisions.  Thus,  when  a  question  arose  which  in- 
terested and  affected  the  whole  Christian  community,  it  was 
decided  by  a  synod  of  the  "Apostles  and  Elders  at  Jerusalem," 
and  the  "  decrees"  of  that  synod  were  sent  down  to  "  all  the 
churches,"  to  be  registered  and  obeyed.  Here  was  evident- 
ly an  assembly  of  Ministers  and  Elders,  acting  as  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  whole  Church,  and  pronouncing  judicial  de- 
cisions, which  were  intended  to  bind  the  whole  body.  If  this 
be  not  Presbyterianism,  then  there  is  nothing  of  the  kind  in 
Scotland  or  in  the  United  States. 

When  we  pass  from  the  New  Testament  to  the  earliest 
records  of  uninspired  antiquity,  the  same  form  of  church  or- 
der is  every  where  apparent.  The  plan  of  ecclesiastical  go- 
vernment disclosed  by  the  Epistles  of  Ignatius,  as  actually 
existing  in  his  day,  is  manifestly  Presbyterian.  He  repre- 
sents every  particular  church  of  which  he  speaks,  as  furnished 
with  a  Bishop  or  Pastor,  a  bench  of  Elders  and  Deacons  ;  he 
continually  employs  language  which  implies  that  these  offi- 
cers were  present  in  every  worshipping  assembly  ;  and  he 
most  evidently  gives  us  to  understand,  that  these  Elders,  with 
the  Pastor  or  Bishop  at  their  head,  conducted  the  govern- 
ment and  discipline  of  each  church.  Clemens  Romanus, 
contemporary  with  Ignatius,  speaks  in  language  of  similar 
import.  He  represents  Bishops  and  Presbyters, — the  Epis- 
copate and  the  Presbyterate,  as  the  same ;  and  expressly 
states  that  the  Presbyters  were  "  set  over  the  church"  by  the 
choice  of  the  Church  ;  and  that  to  rise  up  m  rebellion  agaiiist 
them,  was  considered  as  highly  criminal.  The  testimony  of 
frenaeus,  who  lived  in  the  second  century,  is  no  less  decisive 
in  favour  of  our  system.  He  continually  applies  the  title  of 
Bishop  and  Presbyter  to  the  same  men  ;  speaks  of  "  the  suc- 
cession of  the  Episcopate,"  through  the  Presbyters  and 
ihrough  the  Bishops,  as  the  very  same  ;  nay,  represents  the 
apostolical  succession,  the  Episcopal  succession,  and  the 
Presbyterial  succession,  as  all  identical.  In  short,  he  could 
scarcely  have  kept  a  more  scrupulous  and  exact  balance,  than 
he  does  between  the  dignities,  powers,  and  duties  connected 
with  each  title,  and  ascribed  interchangeably  to  all.  I  might  go 
on  to  quote  Justin  Martyr,  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  and  other 
early  fathers,  as  speaking  a  language  of  equivalent  import. 
But  there  is  no  need  of  going  into  farther  detail.  The  truth 
is,  for  the  first  two  hundred  years  after  Christ,  it  is  certain 


14  HISTOPY  OF 

that  neither  Prelacy  nor  Independency  was  known  in  the 
Church  of  Christ.  There  is  not  a  single  record  withm  that 
period,  which  either  asserts  or  imphes  it ;  but  every  thing  of 
a  contrary  aspect.  Every  flock  of  professing  Christians  had 
its  Pastor  or  Bishop,  with  its  bench  of  Elders,  by  whom  the 
government  and  discipline  were  conducted ;  and  its  body  of 
Deacons,  by  whom  the  funds  collected  for  the  relief  of  the 
poor,  were  received  and  disbursed. 

In  the  third  century  after  Christ  the  aspect  of  things  began 
to  change.  Some  seasons,  in  this  century,  of  exemption  from 
persecution  and  of  comparative  outward  prosperity,  were 
marked  by  very  sensible  departure  from  the  simplicity  and 
purity  of  the  preceding  times.  Heresies  and  schisms  began 
to  distract  the  congregations  of  God's  professing  people.  The 
Ministry  and  Eldership  of  the  Church  declined  both  in  zeal 
and  faithfulness.  The  clergy  became  ambitious  arid  volup- 
tuous, and,  as  a  natural  consequence,  full  of  intrigue  and  con- 
tention. The  pictures  given  of  their  cupidity,  mutual  en- 
croachments, and  degrading  strife,  by  Cyprian,  by  Origen, 
and  by  Eusebius,  as  in  full  operation  in  the  third  century,  are 
truly  of  the  most  revolting  character.  Some  have  said,  indeed, 
that  the  Church,  in  the  Cyprianic  age  presented,  on  the  whole, 
one  of  the  most  satisfactory  models  of  ecclesiastical  perfec- 
tion. Those  who  can  entertain  this  opinion  must  judge  of 
what  is  desirable  in  a  Church,  by  a  very  different  criterion 
from  that  which  the  Bible  furnishes.  Let  them  impartially 
read  the  statements  given  by  the  writers  just  mentioned,  and 
they  will  speedily  alter  their  opinion.  Among  such  a  clergy, 
an  undue  aspiring  after  preferment,  titles  and  places  might  be 
expected,  as  a  matter  of  course.  Indeed,  in  such  circum- 
stances, it  would  have  required  a  constant  succession  of  mira- 
cles to  prevent  prelacy  from  arising.  Nor  was  this  all.  As 
the  Church  declined  from  her  primitive  simplicity  and  purity, 
some  of  her  more  serious  ministers  thought  themselves  war- 
ranted in  resorting  to  other  forms  of  attraction  for  drawing  the 
populace  into  the  Church.  For  attracting  the  Jews  they  be- 
gan to  adopt  some  of  the  titles,  ceremonies,  and  vestments 
of  the  temple  service.  They  began  to  call  the  Christian 
ministry  the  "priesthood;"  and,  as  a  natural  consequence,  to 
speak  of  "  priests"  and  "  high  priests,"  and  "  altars,"  and 
''  sacrifices,"  &c.  &;c. ;  for  all  which,  in  reference  to  the 
Christian  economy,  there  is  not  the  smallest  warrant  in  the 
New  Testament.  Other  ecclesiastical  leaders,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  conciliating  and  attracting  the  Pagans,  introduced  a 
•^ariety  of  rites  from  the  ceremonial  of  the  heathen,  intended 


PRESBYTERIAXISM.  1 5 

(0  make  the  Christian  ritual  more  splendid,  dazzHng,  and 
alluring  to  those  who  had  been  the  votaries  of  dumb  idols,  and 
whose  chief  objection  to  the  religion  of  Christ  was,  that  its 
worship  was  too  simple  and  unadorned.  The  consequence 
was,  that,  toward  the  close  of  the  third  century,  Prelacy  was 
gradually  and  insidiously  introduced.  All  orders  of  ecclesias- 
tical men  partook  of  the  spirit  of  ambitious  encroachment. 
The  Deacons,  whom  the  Apostles  had  appointed  to  be  guar- 
dians of  the  poor,  and  of  the  temporalities  of  the  Church,  be- 
came too  proud  to  discharge  the  appropriate  duties  of  their 
office,  employed  "  sub-deacons"  to  perform  their  official  work, 
and,  after  a  while,  claimed,  and  had  conceded  to  them,  the 
power  of  preaching  and  baptizing.  The  Presbyters  or  Elders 
partook  of  the  same  spirit,  and  although  the  greater  part  of 
them  had  been  chosen  and  set  apart  for  ruling  only,  yet  as  the 
discipline  of  the  Church  became  relaxed  and  unpopular,  and 
finally  in  a  great  measure  abandoned,  they  aU  aspired  to  be 
public  teachers,  and  turned  away  from  their  original  work,  to 
what  they  deemed  a  more  honourable  employment.  The 
Bishops,  who  had  been  originally  overseers  or  pastors  of  sin- 
gle flocks,  claimed  authority  over  the  congregations  in  their 
neighbourhood,  which  had  branched  out  from  their  original 
charges  ;  so  that,  by  little  and  little,  tliey  became  prelates  ; — 
a  new  office  covertly  brought  in  under  an  old  name.  Nor 
did  the  principle  of  ambitious  encroachment  stop  here.  Me- 
tropolitans and  Patriarchs  began  to  "  lord  it"  over  Bishops. 
And  to  crown  the  gradations  of  rank,  the  Bishop  of  Rome, 
seduced  by  the  imperial  splendour  which  sun-ounded  him.,  and 
countenanced  by  imperial  power  and  munificence,  came  to  be 
acknowledged  as  the  supreme  head,  under  Christ,  of  the 
whole  Church  upon  earth,  and  the  infallible  interpreter  of  the 
Saviour's  wiU. 

This  statement  is  confirmed  by  early  Christian  WTiters  of 
the  highest  character,  and  who  were  nearly  contemporary 
with  the  criminal  innovation  of  which  they  speak.  Thus 
Ambrose,  who  wrote  about  the  year  376  after  Christ,  in  his 
commentary  on  Ephesians  iv.  2,  has  the  following  passage." 
"  After  churches  were  planted  in  all  places,  and  officers  or- 
dained, matters  were  setded  otherwise  than  they  were  in  the 
beginning.  And  hence  it  is  that  the  Apostles'  writings  do  not, 
in  all  things,  agree  with  the  present  constitution  of  the  Church  ; 
because  they  were  written  under  the  first  rise  of  the  Church ; 
for  he  calls  Timothy,  who  was  created  a  Presbyter  by  him,  a 
Bishop,  for  so,  at  first,  the  Presbyters  were  called."  This 
passage  is  so  plain,  that  it  requires  no  comment.  Still  more 
2 


6  HISTORY  OF 

unequivocal  and  decisive  is  the  language  of  Jerome.  "  Among 
he  ancients,"  says  he,  "  Presbyters  and  Bishops  were  the 
same.  But  by  little  nnd  little,  that  all  the  seeds  of  dissension 
might  be  plucked  up,  the  whole  care  was  devolved  on  one. 
As,  therefore,  the  Presbyters  know,  that  by  the  custom  ot 
the  Church,  they  are  subject  to  him  who  is  their  president,  so 
let  Bishops  know,  that  they  are  above  Presbyters  more  by  the 
custom  of  the  Church,  than  by  the  true  dispensation  of  Jesus 
Christ !"  And  in  order  to  establish  his  position,  that,  in  the 
apostolic  age.  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were  the  same,  he  quotes 
precisely  those  passages  of  Scripture  which  Presbyterians 
have  been  accustomed,  for  three  hundred  years,  to  adduce  in 
attestation  of  the  same  fact.  The  testimony  of  Augustine, 
Bishop  of  Hippo,  is  to  the  same  amount.  In  writing  to  his 
contemporary  Jerome,  who  was  a  Presbyter,  he  expresses  him- 
self in  the  following  language  :  "I  entreat  you  to  correct  me 
faithfully  when  you  see  I  need  it ;  for,  although,  according  to 
the  names  of  honour  which  the  custom  of  the  Church  has 
now  brought  into  use,  the  office  of  Bishop  is  greater  than  that 
of  Presbyter,  nevertheless,  in  many  respects,  Augustine  is  in- 
ferior to  Jerome."  Oper.  Tom.  II.  Epist.  19.  ad  Hieron.  It 
is  worthy  of  notice,  that  Bishop  Jewel,  in  his  "  Defence  of  his 
Apology  for  the  Church  of  England,"  produces  this  passage 
from  Augustine,  for  the  express  purpose  of  showing  the  origi- 
nal identity  of  Bishop  and  Presbyter,  and  translates  it  thus  : 
"  The  office  of  Bishop  is  above  the  office  of  priest,  not  by  au- 
thority of  Scripture,  but  after  the  names  of  honour  which  the 
custom  of  the  Church  hath  now  obtained."  Defence,  122, 123. 
And,  finally,  to  the  same  effect  is  the  testimony  of  Chrysos- 
tom,  who  wrote  toward  the  close  of  the  fourth  century.  In  his 
eleventh  Homily  on  the  Epistles  to  Timothy,  he  speaks  thus  : 
*'  Having  spoken  of  Bishops,  and  described  them,  Paul  passes 
on  to  the  Deacons.  But  why  is  this  ?  Because,  between 
Bishop  and  Presbyter  there  is  not  much  difference  ;  for  these 
also,  in  hke  manner,  have  committed  to  them  both  the  in- 
struction and  the  government  of  the  Church ;  and  what  things 
he  has  said  concerning  Bishops,  the  same,  also,  he  intended 
for  Presbyters  ;  for  they  have  gained  the  ascendency  only  in 
respect  to  ordination  ;  and  of  this  they  seem  to  have  defraud- 
ed the  Presbyters."  This  passage  of  the  eloquent  father 
needs  no  comment.  If  there  be  meaning  in  words,  Chry- 
sostom  distinctly  conveys  the  idea,  not  only  that  ordination 
was  the  only  point  in  respect  to  which  Bishops,  in  his  day, 
had  gained  precedence  over  Presbyters,  but  that  they  had 
gained  even  this  by  fraudulent  means.     This  is  the  undoubted 


PRESBYTERIANISM.  t7 

import  of  the  word  which  he  employs,  and  which  we  translate 
defraud.  The  same  word  is  employed  in  1  Thessalonians  iv, 
6.  "  That  no  man  go  beyond  and  defraud  his  brother  in  any 
matter,"  &c.  And  again,  2  Cor.  vii.  2.  "  We  have  wronged 
no  man,  we  have  corrupted  no  man,  we  have  defrauded  no 
man."  And  be  it  remembered,  no  individual  in  the  fourth 
century  was  more  competent,  in  every  respect,  than  Chrysos- 
tom  to  say  whether  the  pre-eminence  which  had  been  gained 
by  Bishops  in  his  day,  rested  on  a  divine  warrant,  or  had  been 
fraudulently  obtained. 

Thus  it  is  evident — the  ancients  themselves  being  our  wit- 
nesses— that,  in  the  apostolic  age.  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were 
the  same  ;  that,  the  Bishops  were  parish  ministers ;  that,  in 
every  parish,  a  body  of  Elders^  with  their  Pastor  at  their 
head,  conducted  the  government  and  discipline;  that,  of 
course,  Presbyterian  parity  in  the  Gospel  ministry  universally 
prevailed ;  that  the  rite  of  ordination  was  equally  the  prero- 
gative of  all  who  were  empowered  to  preach  the  Gospel,  and 
administer  the  sacraments  ;  that  it  was  habitually  performed 
"  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery;"  that  mat- 
ters continued  in  this  situation  for  more  than  a  hundred  years 
after  the  close  of  the  apostolic  age  ;  that  then  clerical  pride, 
ambition,  and  cupidity  began,  more  sensibly  than  in  preceding 
times,  to  disclose  their  native  effects  ;  and  that  the  pastors  of 
the  more  opulent  towns  claimed  special  pre-eminence  and 
powers,  as  peculiarly  the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  which, 
by  little  and  little,  were  admitted,  and  at  length,  permanently 
established.  Thus  were  parochial  Bishops,  or  the  pastors  of 
single  congregations,  gradually  transformed  into  diocesan,  or 
prelatical  Bishops,  and,  under  an  old  and  familiar  title,  a  new 
office  artfully  introduced ;  until,  in  the  fourth  century,  when 
Christianity  became  the  established  religion  of  the  empire, 
when  the  clergy  were  pampered  by  imperial  bounty,  de- 
fended by  imperial  authority,  and  their  honours  arranged  ac- 
cording to  the  gradations  of  rank  v/hich  were  obtained  in  the 
state ;  all  traces  of  primitive  simplicity  and  purity  were  lost 
in  the  plans  and  splendour  of  worldly  policy.  Bishops  be- 
came "  lords  over  God's  heritage,"  rather  than  "  examples  to 
their  flocks." 

We  are  not  to  suppose,  however,  that  this  departure  from 
the  apostolic  model  of  church  order  was  universal.  There 
were  "  witnesses  of  the  truth,"  who,  in  humble  retirement, 
bore  a  faithful  testimony  to  the  original  system  of  discipline 
as  well  as  doctrine.  The  simple-hearted  Paulicians,  in  the 
seventh  century,  testified  against  the  encroachments  of  pre- 


18  HISTORY  OF 

lacy.  They  were  succeeded,  not  long  afterwards,  by  the 
Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  who  still  more  distinctly  and 
zealously  protested  against  all  encroachments  on  Presbyterian 
simplicity.  This  is  freely  acknowledged  by  many  of  the 
advocates  of  prelacy,  as  well  as  others.  Mneas  Sylvius, 
afterwards  Pope  Fius  the  II.,  declares — "  They,  (the  Wal- 
denses,) deny  the  hierarchy ;  maintaining  that  there  is  no 
difference  among  the  priests,  by  reason  of  dignity  or  office." 
Medina,  a  learned  prelatist  in  the  council  of  Trent,  asserted 
that  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity  had  been  condemned 
in  Aerius,  and  in  the  Waldenses,  as  well  as  in  others  speci- 
fied by  him.  Bellarmine  acknowledges  that  the  Waldenses 
denied  the  divine  right  of  prelacy.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Rainolds, 
an  eminently  learned  Episcopal  divine,  professor  of  Divinity 
in  the  university  of  Oxford,  in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth, 
in  writing  on  this  subject  to  Sir  Francis  Knollys,  declares — 
"  All  those  who  have,  for  500  years  past,  endeavoured  the 
reformation  of  the  Church,  have  taught,  that  all  pastors, 
whether  they  be  called  Bishops  or  Priests,  are  invested  with 
equal  authority  and  power ; — as  first,  the  Waldenses;  next 
Marcilius  Petavinus;  then  Wickliffe  and  his  disciples ;  after- 
wards Huss  and  the  Hussites;  and  last  of  all,  Luther,  Cal- 
vin, Bullinger,  Musculus,  &;c."  Their  own  historians, 
John  Paul  Perrin,  and  Sir  Samuel  Morland,  make  state- 
ments, and  exhibit  documents  which  fully  confirm  this  repre- 
sentation. For  although  in  some  of  the  records  of  the  Wal- 
denses certain  Seniors  are  mentioned  who  performed  par- 
ticular duties  for  the  sake  of  order;  yet  we  are  explicitly 
informed  that  they  claimed  no  superiority  by  divine  right. 
Accordingly  Peter  Heylin,  a  bigoted  Episcopalian,  speaking 
of  the  Bohemian  Brethren,  a  branch  of  the  same  people,  and 
who  are  known  to  have  received  ministers  from  them — says, 
that  "  they  had  fallen  upon  a  way  of  ordaining  ministers 
among  themselves,  without  ha\ing  recourse  unto  the  bishop, 
or  any  such  superior  officer  as  a  superintendent." — History 
of  Presbyterianism,  pp.  409,  410.  The  Rev.  John  Scott, 
the  pious  Episcopal  continuator  of  Milner^s  Ecclesiastical 
History,  in  giving  a  particular  statement  of  the  tenets  and 
practices  of  the  Waldenses,  addressed  by  George  Mauzel, 
one  of  their  most  devoted  ministers,  to  ^colampadius,  the 
celebrated  Reformer,  in  1530,  represents  that  minister  as 
stating,  in  the  most  unequivocal  manner,  that  the  different  or- 
ders of  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  did  not  exist  in  their 
ministry.  Vol.  I.  139.  The  Rev.  Adam  Blair,  one  of  the 
latest  and  most  profound  writers  on  the  history  of  the  Wal 


PRESBYTERIANISM.  19 

denses,  asserts  and  shows,  with  the  utmost  confidence,  that 
their  ecclesiastical  government  was  not  Episcopal.  History 
of  the  Waldenses,  in  two  volumes  octavo,  1833.  "  Like 
Presbyterians  and  Independents,"  says  this  writer,  "  they 
denied  the  establishment  of  the  different  orders  of  ministers 
then  received  in  the  Western  Church,  such  as  Bishops,  Arch- 
bishops," &LQ.  I.  176.  Again  he  says — "  No  form  of  eccle- 
siastical government  in  Great  Britain,  seems  exactly  the  same 
with  the  ancient  Waldenses."  Viewing  them  as  having  a 
constant  moderator.  Episcopalians  think  him  like  a  Bishop. 
But  in  regard  to  Episcopal  consecration,  Mr.  Acland,  an 
Episcopalian,  informs  us,  that  "  this  ornament  of  our  church 
establishment,  as  justly  cherished  by  us,  is  unquestionably 
no  longer  preserved  among  the  Faudois.^'  Viewing  them  as 
having  a  Synod,  and  having  a  Consistory,  or  session,  in  each 
congregation,  they  are  Presbyterians  ;  yet  with  t?iis  differ- 
ence, that,  in  our  country.  Synods  and  Presbyteries  have  a 
new  moderator  every  year,  and  the  lay-elders  are  sent  by  the 
session  in  each  congregation  ;  while  the  Waldensian  congre- 
gations meet  and  appoint  the  elder  The  visits  of  the  mode- 
rator to  the  different  congregations,  as  appointed  by  the  court, 
have  nothing  in  them  inconsistent  with  Presbytery.  Mr.  Qil- 
ly,  (also  an  Episcopalian)  admits  that  the  present  Vaudois 
are  nearer  to  Presbyterians,  than  to  any  other  form  of  church 
government,  only  not  so  rigid."  Vol.  I.  540,  541.  But  the 
undoubted  fact,  which  places  this  whole  subject  beyond  all 
question,  is,  that  after  the  commencement  of  the  Reformation 
in  Geneva^  the  Waldenses  not  only  held  communion  with 
that  Church,  which  we  all  know  was  strictly  Presbyterian, 
but  also  received  ministers  from  her,  and  of  course  recognised 
the  validity  of  her  ordinations  in  the  strongest  practical  man- 
ner. This  they  could  never  have  done,  had  they  been  in  the 
habit  of  regarding  the  subject  in  the  same  light  with  modem 
prelatists. 

But  the  Waldenses  were  not  merely  Presbyterian  as  to  the 
point  of  ministerial  parity.  According  to  their  own  most  au- 
thentic writers,  as  well  as  the  acknowledgment  of  their  bit- 
terest enemies — they  resembled  our  beloved  Church  in  almost 
every  thing.  They  rejected  all  human  inventions  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God, — such  as  the  sign  of  the  cross  in  baptism ;  fast 
and  festival  days  ;  the  confirmation  of  children  and  youth  ; 
the  consecration  of  edifices  for  public  worship,  &c.  We  are 
also  told  that  all  their  churches  were  bound  together  by  Sy- 
nods, which  assembled  once  a  year ;  that  these  Synods  were 
composed  of  Ministers  and  Ruling  Elders,  as  in  the  Presby- 
2* 


20  HISTORY  OF 

terian  Church ;  that  their  business  was  to  examine  and  ordain 
candidates  for  the  ministry,  and  authoritatively  to  order  every 
thing  respecting  their  whole  body.  We  may  say,  then,  with 
strict  regard  to  historical  verity,  that,  in  the  darkest  and  most 
corrupt  periods  of  the  Church,  Presbyterianism  was  kept  alive 
in  the  purest,  and  indeed,  in  the  only  pure  churches  now- 
known  to  have  then  existed. 

When  the  Reformation  from  Popery  occurred,  it  is  at  once 
wonderful  and  edifyong  to  observe,  with  what  almost  entire 
unanimity  the  leaders  in  that  glorious  enterprise,  concurred  in 
proclaiming  and  sustaining  Presbyterian  principles.  Luther, 
Melancthon  and  Bucer,  in  Gennany;  Farel,  Viret  and  Calvm, 
in  France  and  Geneva;  Zuingle  and  GEcolampadius,  in  Swit- 
zerland :  Peter  Mart}T,  in  Italy;  A.  Lasco,  in  Hungary ;  Junius 
and  others,  in  Holland ;  Knox,  in  Scotland ;  and  a  decided 
majority  of  the  most  enlightened  and  pious  friends  of  the  Re- 
formation, even  in  England, — all,  without  concert,  concurred 
in  maintaining,  that  in  the  apostolical  age  there  was  no  pre- 
lacy. Bishop  and  Presbyter  being  the  same  ;  that  the  govern- 
ment of  the  Church  by  Ruhng  as  well  as  Teaching  Elders, 
was  plainly  warranted  in  Scripture ;  and  that  individual  con- 
gregations were  not  to  be  considered  as  independent  commu- 
nities, but  as  so  many  members  of  the  body  to  which  they 
belonged,  and  to  be  governed  by  representative  assemblies,  for 
the  benefit  of  the  whole.  It  is  true,  these  different  leaders  of 
the  Reformed  Churches  did  not,  all  of  them,  actually  establish 
Presbyterian  order  in  their  respective  ecclesiastical  bodies ; 
but  while  all  the  Refonned  Churches  in  France,  Germany, 
Holland,  Hungary,  Geneva,  and  Scotland,  were  thorough 
Presbyterians,  not  only  in  principle,  but  also  in  practice — even 
the  Lutherans  universally  acknowledged  that  ministerial  parity 
was  the  order  of  the  apostolic  Church,  and  also^  that  in  the 
primitive  times  Ruling  Elders  conducted  the  government  and 
discipline  in  all  the  Churches.  Still  many  of  them  holding, 
as  they  did,  that  the  Church  was  not  bound  to  adhere,  in  every 
respect,  to  the  apostolic  model  of  government  and  discipline, 
but  was  at  liberty  to  modify  it  according  to  exigencies,  and 
as  they  might  deem,  for  edification  ;  they  adopted  forms  of 
regulation  and  discipline,  differing  from  each  other,  and  difier- 
ing,  as  they  did  not  hesitate  to  confess,  from  the  plan  actually 
in  use  in  the  days  of  apostolic  simplicity.  The  Church  of 
England  was  the  only  one  in  all  Protestant  Christendom^ 
which,  at  the  Reformation,  adopted  the  system  of  Prelacy. 
Tliis  was  occasioned  by  the  fact,  that  in  that  country  the 
Bishops,  the  court-clergy,  and  the  monarchs,  took  the  lead  in 


PRESBYTERIAMSM.  21 

reforming  the  Church ;  and,  as  might  have  been  expected, 
chose  to  retain  the  system  of  ecclesiastical  pre-eminence  which 
had  been  so  long  established.  It  is  notorious,  however,  that 
this  was  done  originally,  without  any  claim  of  divine  right ; 
with  a  spirit  of  affectionate  intercourse  and  communion  with 
all  the  non-episcopal  Churches  on  the  continent  of  Europe, 
and  after  all,  contrary  to  the  judgment  of  large  numbers  of 
the  most  eminently  pious  and  learned  friends  of  the  Reforma- 
tion in  that  kingdom. 

It  is  very  common  for  the  more  uninformed  opponents  of 
Presbyterianism  to  assert,  that  this  form  of  ecclesiastical  order 
was  invented  by  Calvin,  and  first  set  in  operation  in  the 
Church  of  Geneva.  The  ignorance  of  those  who  can  make 
this  allegation  is  indeed  surprising  I  Passing  by  all  that  has 
been  said  of  the  palpable  existence  of  Presbyterian  order  in 
the  apostolic  age  ;  of  its  plain  delineation  in  the  Epistles  of 
Ignatius,  and  in  the  writings  of  other  fathers  succeeding  the 
pastor  of  Antioch  ;  and  waiving  all  remark  on  its  acknow- 
ledged estabhshment,  as  we  have  seen,  among  the  pious 
Waldenses  ;  it  w^as  undoubtedly  in  use  in  Switzerland  and  in 
Geneva  long  before  Calvin  had  appeared  as  a  reformer,  oi 
-had  set  his  foot  in  either  of  those  countries.  The  Rev.  ]Mr. 
Scott,  the  Episcopal  continuator  of  Milner's  Ecclesiastical 
History,  before  quoted,  explicitly  states,  that  as  early  as  1528, 
when  Calvin  was  but  nineteen  years  of  age,  and  was  whoUy 
miknown  in  the  ecclesiastical  world,  "the  Presbyterian  form 
of  church  government  was  introduced  into  Switzerland,"  and 
that  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  parity  had  been  uniformly 
taught  by  Zuingle,  before  the  time  of  Calvin.  In  Geneva, 
likewise,  before  Calvin  ever  saw  that  city,  his  countrymen, 
Farel  and  Viret,  had  gone  thither  and  commenced  the  Re- 
formation upon  Presbyterian  principles.  There,  when  he 
consented  to  cast  in  his  lot  with  them,  he  found  a  "  Presby- 
tery" established ;  and  all  that  he  had  to  do  was  to  complete 
the  system  by  adding  the  bench  of  Ruling  Elders  for  conduct- 
ing the  discipUne  of  the  Church ;  and  even  this  he  did  not 
invent,  but  confessedly  borrowed  from  that  branch  of  the 
Waldenses  called  the  Bohemian  Brethren ;  although  he  evi- 
dently considered,  and  represented  it  as  distinctly  warranted 
by  Scripture. 

Presbyterianism,  as  it  has  long  existed  in  Scotland,  Hol- 
land, France,  Geneva,  and  Germany,  is,  in  substance,  the 
same  system,  differing  only  in  these  several  countries,  in  mi- 
nor details,  and  chiefly  in  the  names  and  arrangements  of 
their  several  ecclesiastical  assemblies.     As  those  who  com 


22  HISTORY  OF 

rnenced  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  America,  about  the  begin- 
ning of  the  eighteenth  century,  were  chiefly  emigrants  from 
North  Britain  and  Ireland,  so  the  Church  of  Scotland  was 
more  than  any  other,  their  model.  Our  whole  arrangement 
of  judicatories,  and  our  whole  ecclesiastical  nomenclature, 
are  with  few  exceptions  borrowed  from  Scotland.  What  our 
ecclesiastical  Mother  and  we  call  the  "  Church  Session," 
most  of  the  Presbyterians  on  the  continent  of  Europe  call  the 
"  Consistory  ;"  and  what  we  call  the  "  Presbytery,"  they 
call  the  "  Classis."  But  in  general  principles,  we  are  all  en- 
tirely agreed. 

Although  it  is  well  known  that  Presbyterianism,  in  some 
parts  of  the  old  world,  has  been,  and  continues  to  be  connected 
with  the  State ;  as  in  Scotland,  Holland,  Geneva,  and  some 
parts  of  Germany  ;  yet  this  is  by  no  means  a  necessary,  or 
even  a  natural  connection.  It  is  deeply  to  be  lamented  that 
such  a  connection  was  ever  formed  in  any  case ;  having  proved, 
it  may  be  safely  affirmed,  in  all  cases  essentially  injurious. 
This  form  of  ecclesiastical  order  existed  in  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  not  only  without  any  alliance  with  the  civil  govern- 
ment, but  in  the  midst  of  its  most  unrelenting  persecution  : 
and  this  continued  to  be  the  case  for  more  than  a  hundred 
years  after  the  last  Apostle  had  gone  to  his  reward.  The  same 
may  be  said  of  this  form  of  ecclesiastical  order,  as  it  existed 
among  the  pious  Waldenses.  It  was  the  object,  in  no  case, 
of  state-patronage,  but  of  unceasing  persecution.  It  is  much 
to  be  regretted,  that  any  portion  of  the  Church  of  Christ,  un- 
der any  form  of  organization,  has  ever  sought  to  be  united 
with  the  state,  or  consented  to  receive  support  from  the  civil 
power.  Such  a  union  has  never  failed  to  be  followed  by  dis- 
astrous consequences  to  the  best  interests  of  religion.  It  is 
undoubtedly  better — far  better  for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the 
Church  that  she  should  be  persecuted,  rather  than  supported 
by  the  civil  government. 

Happily,  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States,  has 
never  formed  or  sought  any  kind  of  connection  with  the  state. 
Nay,  she  has  gone  further.  When,  after  the  establishment  of 
our  national  independence,  it  became  proper  to  revise  and  mo- 
dify our  ecclesiastical  formularies,  our  fathers  threw  out  of  them 
every  thing  relating  to  the  interposition  of  the  civil  magistrate 
in  the  affairs  of  the  Church,  and  introduced,  in  place  of  what 
was  thus  excluded,  a  solemn  declaration  against  any  particular 
class  or  denomination  of  Christians  receiving  any  species  of 
religious  establishment,  or  preference  from  the  civil  govern- 
ment.    So  that  our  public  standards  contain  an  open,  solemn, 


PRESBYTERIANISM.  23 

and  permanent  Protest  against  any  claim  or  attempt  on  the 
part  of  our  own,  or  any  other  Church,  obtaining  the  least 
patronage  or  pre-eminence  from  governmental  favour.  Nor  is 
there  any  point  concerning  which  a  more  firm  and  deep-rooted 
sentiment  prevails,  than  on  this  point,  throughout  the  Presby- 
terian Church.  It  is  universally  regarded  as  a  settled  princi- 
ple, that  scarcely  any  greater  calamity  could  happen  to  our 
body,  than  that  it  should  be,  in  any  way,  directly  or  indirect- 
ly, connected  with  the  state. 

It  would  be  doing  gross  injustice  to  Presbyterianism  not  to 
state,  before  closing  this  historical  sketch,  that  it  has  been 
found,  in  all  ages,  friendly  to  "the  rights  of  man;"  conducive 
to  the  advancement,  rather  than  the  destruction  of  civil  and 
religious  liberty.  In  making  this  statement,  it  is  not  meant  to 
be  maintained,  that  no  Presbyterian  has  ever  been  chargeable 
with  the  spirit  or  practice  of  persecution  ;  but  simply  to  say, 
that  the  general  characteristic  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  as 
a  denomination,  is,  that  it  has  ever  shown  itself  friendly  to  the 
diffusion  of  knowledge,  to  the  rights  of  conscience,  and  to  the 
enjoyments  of  rational  liberty.  It  has  often,  very  often,  been 
a  persecuted,  hut  never  a  persecuting  Church.  The  few  ex- 
amples of  a  contrary  aspect  v/hich  have  appeared,  were,  in  al- 
most all  cases,  traceable,  either  to  individual  mistake  and  in- 
firmity, or  to  a  momentary  impulse  of  retaliation  on  bloody 
persecutors,  when  unexpectedly  placed  in  the  power  of  those 
who  had  been  recently  the  victims  of  the  most  cruel  oppres- 
sion. The  death  of  Servetus  (even  allowing  all  the  agency 
in  his  death  on  the  part  of  Calvin,  which  the  enemies  of  that 
illustrious  man  have  been  fond  of  ascribing  to  him,  but  Avhich 
every  well  informed  and  impartial  person  knows  cannot  be 
allowed)  had  no  real  connection  with  Presbyterianism.  The 
cases  of  undue  severity  exercised  towards  others,  by  Presby- 
terians in  Great  Britain,  in  the  course  of  the  seventeenth  cen- 
tury were  almost  all  referable  to  the  maxim,  that  "  oppression 
makes  even  wise  men  mad;"  and  seldom  rose  much  above 
the  point  of  self-defence.*     And  as  to  the  fierce  and  unrelent- 

*  It  is  truly  wonderful  that  intelligent  and  conscientious  men,  while 
they  make  such  a  hideous  outcry  concerning'  the  affair  of  Servetus,  and 
study  to  place  in  so  odious  a  light  the  severities  indulged  towards  some 
of  the  Episcopal  clergy,  by  the  Independents,  in  England,  during  the 
period  of  the  Commonwealth,  should  entirely  forget  the  instances  of 
persecution,  a  hundredfold  more  frequent  and  more  severe,  practised  by 
Prelacy.  Archbishop  Cranmer  was  immediately  active  in  dragging  at 
least /our  persons  to  the  flames,  of  whom  two  were  women.  Let  the 
flames  which  consumed  the  body  of  the  amiable  and  pious  Ann  AskeWj 
kindled  through  the  misguided  zeal  of  that  prelate,  confound  those  who 
would  represent  Calvin  as  the  prince  of  persecutors.     More  than  this. 


24  HISTORY  OF  PRESBYTERIANISM. 

ing  oppression  recently  experienced  by  evangelical  men  in 
Geneva,  it  is  notoriously  the  spirit  and  the  work  of  Unitarian- 
ism  ;  the  same  spirit  which,  in  the  sixteenth  century,  prompted 
the  leading  Socinians,  when  Francis  David,  one  of  their  own 
number,  who  believed  with  them  the  mere  humanity  of  Christ, 
and  therefore  thought  that  divine  worship  ought  not  to  be  paid 
him, — to  throw  him  into  prison,  where  he  died. 

Especially  may  it  be  said  that,  in  our  own  country,  during 
the  one  hundred  and  thirty  years  in  which  it  has  existed  in 
an  organized  form,  Presb}  terianism  has  uniformly  proved  her- 
self the  friend  of  civil  and  religious  liberty  ;  and  tho\igh  often 
herself  persecuted,  has  never  been,  in  a  single  instance,  charge- 
able with  invading  the  rights  of  others.  Nay,  to  the  present 
hour  she  is,  on  every  side,  bitterly  reviled  and  calumniated, 
as  "  narrow,'*  "  sectarian,"  "  ambitious,"  "  aspiring  at  a  civil 
establishment,"  &;c.,  when  it  is  notorious,  that  there  is  not  a  sin- 
gle denomination  m  our  country  so  exempt  from  narrow  secta- 
rianism ;  so  free  from  a  proselyting  spirit ;  so  ready  to  unite  with 
all  evangelical  denominations  in  enterprises  of  benevolence  ; 
and  which  has  been  so  signalized  by  the  most  solemn  pro- 
tests, public  and  private,  against  every  species  of  connexion 
between  the  Church  and  the  civil  government.  When,  with 
these  unquestionable  facts  before  our  eyes,  we  hear  the  ca- 
lumnies before  referred  to  proclaimed  on  every  side,  can  the 
most  unbounded  charity  imagine  that  they  are  really  believed, 
or  that  the  motive  which  actuates  their  propagators  can  be  a 
regard  to  truth  ? 

in  the  reign  of  Edward  VI.,  he  is  also  confessed  by  the  historians  of  his 
own  church,  to  have  "  procured  the  death"  of  Joanna  Bocher  and  George 
Paris,  labouring,  and  with  success,  to  overcome  the  scruples  of  the  young 
king,  in  signing  the  warrant  for  burning  them.  Again  :  during  the 
reign  of  James  I.,  about  twenty-five  persons  were  hanged,  drawn,  and 
quartered  for  their  religion,  in  England.  (See  Brookes  History  of  Re- 
ligious Liberty,  Vol.  II.  p.  403.)  During  the  same  reign,  (A.  D.  1612,) 
Bartholomew  Legate,  and  Edward  Wightman,  were  burnt  to  death  for 
the  same  cause ;  the  former  under  the  immediate  administration  and 
authority  of  Dr.  King,  Bishop  of  London,  and  the  latter  under  the  di- 
rection of  Neile,  Bishop  uf  Litchfield  and  Coventry,  who  are  acknow- 
ledged  to  have  had  an  immediate  agency  in  bringing  them  to  the  stake. 
One  would  think,  that  in  more  than  half  a  century  after  the  affair  of 
Servetns,  the  prelates  of  England  might  have  become  a  little  more  en- 
lightened wnth  regard  to  the  rights  of  conscience.  But  the  miserable 
oppressions  and  cruelty  exercised  by  prelacy,  and  especially  by  Arch- 
bishop  Laud  and  his  coadjutors;  and  the  still  more  cruel  ejections, 
imprisonments,  and  massacres,  both  in  North  and  South  Britain,  which 
marked  the  reigns  of  Charles  II.  and  James  II.,  are  enough  to  sicken 
the  heart,  and  ought  for  ever  to  impose  silence  on  prelacy,  with  regard 
to  pernecution. 


DOCTRINE  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  25 

CHAPTER  III. 

DOCTRINE  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  has  been  distinguished,  in  all 
ages,  for  laying  great  stress  on  the  maintenance  of  pure  doc- 
trine. Such  was  eminently  the  case  in  primitive  times, 
when  it  was  enjoined  upon  them  to  "  contend  earnestly  for  the 
faith  once  delivered  to  the  saints."  And  such  was  no  less  re- 
markably their  characteristic  when,  under  the  name  of  Wal- 
denses,  for  five  or  six  hundred  years  before  the  Reformation, 
they  maintained  a  noble  testimony  m  favour  of  the  truth,  in 
the  midst  of  the  deplorable  darkness  and  corruption  of  the  Pa- 
pacy. At  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  the  same  zeal  for 
the  true  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ,  led  the  faithful  ser- 
vants of  God,  in  different  parts  of  the  Church,  to  form  an  ' 
pubhsh  their  "  Confessions  of  Faith,"  which  remain  to  th 
present  day  as  monuments  of  their  fidelity  to  their  Master's  will 
The  people  of  whom  we  speak,  evidently  regarded  the  pure 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel  as  lying  at  the  foundation  of  Christian 
character  and  hope ;  and  while  they  attached  no  small  import- 
ance to  the  government  and  discipline  of  the  Church,  they 
regarded,  as  of  far  more  vital  importance,  those  great,  funda- 
mental principles  of  our  common  salvation,  which  enter  es- 
sentially into  the  character  and  life  of  Christian  experience. 

The  system  of  doctrine  of  which  the  Presbyterian  Church 
has  solemnly  declared  her  acceptance  and  belief,  is  comprised 
in  the  "Westminster  Confession  of  Faith,"  and  the  "Larger 
and  Shorter  Catechisms."  These  we  believe  contain  a  sum- 
mary of  the  doctrines  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  and,  on 
this  account  alone,  we  profess  to  receive  them,  and  require  a 
solemn  assent  to  the  "  Confession  of  Faith"  on  the  part  of  all 
who  are  admitted  to  the  pastoral  office,  or  that  of  spiritual 
ruling  in  our  body.  This  system  of  doctrine  has  received  the 
distinctive  title  of  Calvinism.  Not  because  Calvin  invented  it ; 
but  because,  among  all  the  modern  advocates  of  it,  he  w^as, 
undoubtedly,  the  most  profound  and  able  ;  and  because  it  has 
suited  the  policy  of  some  to  endeavour  to  convey  the  idea  that 
the  system  in  question  was  unknown  until  Calvin  began  to 
propagate  and  defend  it. 

In  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
there  are  many  doctrines  in  which  we  entirely  agree  with  oui 
brethren  of  other  denominations.  In  regard  to  aU  that  is  em- 
braced in  that  formula  concerning  the  being  and  perfections  of 


ZQ  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 

God ;  tlie  Trinity  of  persons  in  the  Godhead ;  the  divinity, 
incarnation,  and  atoning  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God,  &c.,  we 
may  be  said  to  hold,  substantially  in  common  with  all  sects 
who  deserve  the  Christian  name.  But  with  respect  to  the  true 
state  of  human  nature  before  God ;  the  doctrine  of  sovereign 
unconditional  election  to  eternal  life ;  the  doctrine  that  Christ 
died  in  a  special  sense  for  his  elect  people  ;  the  doctrine  of 
justification  by  the  imputed  righteousness  of  Christ  alone ;  of 
sanctification  by  the  special  and  invincible  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  of  the  perseverance  of  the  saints  in  holiness, — we 
differ  very  materially  from  many  who  bear  the  Christian 
name.  In  short,  with  regard  to  what  are  commonly  called 
the  *'  five  points,"  discussed  and  decided  in  the  Synod  of 
Bort,  our  Confession  is  opposed  to  Arminianism,  and  coin- 
cides with  the  Calvinistic  system  maintained  by  that  body. 

It  may  be  safely  said  that  no  theological  system  was  ever 
more  gi'ossly  misrepresented,  or  more  foully  and  unjustly  vili- 
fied than  this.  It  has  been  by  multitudes  defamed,  as  an 
abominable  system,  revolting  to  every  dictate  of  reason ;  dis- 
honourable to  God  ;  unfriendly  to  Christian  comfort ;  adapted 
to  beget  discouragement  and  despair  on  the  one  hand,  or  pre- 
sumption and  licentiousness  on  the  other.  The  gross  misre- 
presentations with  which  it  has  been  assailed ;  the  disinge- 
nuous attempts  to  fasten  upon  it  consequences  which  its  ad- 
vocates disavow  and  abhor ;  and  the  unsparing  calumny  which 
is  continually  heaped  upon  it,  and  its  friends,  have  scarcely 
ever  been  equalled  in  any  other  case  in  the  entire  annals  of 
theological  controversy.  Those  who  have  been  accustomed 
to  hsten  to  this  blind  and  unhallowed  abuse,  are  respectfully 
requested  to  weigh  with  serious  impartiality  the  following 
considerations : 

1.  It  is  but  justice  to  ascertain  what  the  real  system  is 
which  Presbyterians  believe.  The  opponents  of  this  system 
are  wont  to  give  the  most  unjust  and  shocking  pictures  of  it. 
Whether  this  is  done  from  ignorance  or  dishonesty,  it  would 
be  painful,  as  well  as  vain,  at  present,  to  inquire.  They  al- 
lege, that  it  represents  God  as  really  the  author  of  sin,  and 
man  as  laid  under  a  physical  necessity  of  sinning,  and  then  as 
damned  for  it,  do  what  he  can.  They  insist  that  our  doctrine 
of  depravity,  and  the  mode  of  inheriting  it,  if  true,  destroys 
moral  agency,  reduces  our  race  to  the  condition  of  mere  ma- 
chines, and,  of  course,  makes  all  punishment  of  sin  unjust  and 
absurd.  In  short,  they  contend  that  the  view  which  we  give 
of  the  plan  of  salvation,  makes  it  a  system  of  heathenish  fate, 
or  of  refined  Antinomianism,  equally  destructive  of  holiness 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHITRCH.  27 

and  of  comfort ;  and  that,  under  the  guise  of  free  grace,  we 
build  up  a  fabric  of  favouritism  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  fixed 
necessity  on  the  other,  at  once  making  God  a  tj'rant,  and  man 
a  passive  subject  of  his  arbitrary  will.  But  is  it  true  that 
Presbyterians  embrace  any  such  system  as  this  ?  Nothing 
can  be  further  from  the  truth.  It  is  a  shameful  caricature, 
which  has  no  correspondence  with  any  thing  but  the  pervert- 
ed pictures  of  prejudice  and  bigotry.  We  abhor  such  senti- 
ments just  as  much  as  our  uncandid  accusers. 

The  truth  is,  it  would  be  difficult  to  find  a  writer  or  speaker 
who  has  distinguished  himself  by  opposing  Calvinism,  who 
has  fairly  represented  the  system,  or  who  really  appeared  to 
understand  it.  They  are  for  ever  fighting  against  a  caricature. 
Some  of  the  most  grave  and  venerable  writers  in  our  country, 
who  have  appeared  in  the  Arminian  ranks,  are,  undoubtedly, 
in  this  predicament.  Whether  this  has  arisen  from  the  want 
of  knowledge,  or  the  want  of  candour,  the  ejffect  is  the  same, 
and  the  conduct  is  worthy  of  severe  censure.  The  writer  of 
these  pages  is  fully  persuaded  that  Arminian  principles,  M^hen 
traced  out  to  their  natural  and  unavoidable  consequences,  lead 
to  an  invasion  of  the  essential  attributes  of  God,  and,  of  course, 
to  blank  and  cheerless  atheism.  Yet  in  making  a  statement 
of  the  Arminian  system,  as  actually  held  by  its  advocates,  he 
should  consider  himself  as  inexcusable,  if  he  departed  a  hair's 
breadth  from  the  delineation  made  by  its  friends.  The  sys- 
tem itself  is  one  thing  ;  the  consequences  which  may  be  drawn 
from  it,  another. 

Without  pretending  to  go  over  all  the  points  of  Calvinism 
in  detail,  let  it  suffice  to  say,  that  the  system  which  Presbyte- 
rians profess  to  receive,  is  of  the  following  character  and 
amount : — That  the  Gospel  finds  all  men  by  nature  dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins,  destitute  alike  of  the  image  and  favour  of 
God,  and  incapable  of  regaining  either,  in  virtue  of  any 
strength  or  resources  Avithin  themselves  ;  that  the  plan  of  man's 
recovery  from  this  state  of  rebellion,  depravity,  and  ruin,  is, 
from  beginning  to  end,  a  system  of  mere  unmerited  grace  ; 
that  it  was  the  wonderful,  unprompted  grace,  or  undeserved 
love  of  God,  which,  in  the  eternal  counsels  of  peace,  contem- 
plating man  as  fallen,  devised  a  stupendous  plan  of  redemp- 
tion from  the  guilt  and  power  of  sin ;  that  in  these  eternal 
counsels  and  purposes  he  regarded  the  whole  human  race  as 
equally  fallen,  and  as  equally  undeserving  on  account  of  their 
sins ;  that,  however,  in  his  sovereign  mercy,  he  resolved  to 
save  a  portion  of  them ;  that  he  was  prompted  to  this  choice, 
not  by  any  foresight  of  faith  and  obedience  on  th«  part  of  the 
3 


28  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 

elect,  because  their  faith  and  obedience  are  his  own  sovereign 
gift;  but  by  the  mere  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  that  they 
might  be  to  the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace ;  that  God  was 
under  no  obligation  to  provide  deliverance  for  any  of  our  race ; 
that  he  might  justly  have  left  us  all  to  perish  in  our  iniquity, 
as  he  did  the  fallen  angels,  toward  whom  he  was,  surely, 
guilty  of  no  injustice ;  that  he  was  pleased,  however,  in  the 
exercise  of  amazing  mercy,  to  provide  a  plan  of  pardon,  and 
of  restoration  to  life  and  blessedness ;  that  he  gave  his  only 
begotten  Son,  that  whosoever  belie veth  in  him  might  not  per- 
ish, but  obtain  everlasting  life.  We  believe  further,  that  not 
only  the  providing  of  this  Saviour,  but  the  disposition,  in  each 
individual,  to  accept  of  him,  is  all  of  grace,  that  is,  the  free, 
unmerited  gift  of  God.  We  have  no  doubt  that  all  mankind, 
left  to  themselves,  would  reject  this  great  salvation,  and  that 
it  is  discriminating  and  all-conquering  grace  which  inclines 
any  to  receive  it.  We  are  persuaded,  further,  that,  as  salva- 
tion is  all  of  grace,  and,  as  it  is  evident  from  Scripture  and 
from  daily  observation,  that  all  men  are  not  believers,  and,  of 
course,  that  all  are  not  saved,  so  it  was  not  God's  original  in- 
tention to  save  all ;  for  it  is  granted  that  he  does  not  actually 
save  all ;  and  that  which  he  now  does,  if  he  be  such  a  God  as 
the  Bible  represents  him,  he  always  intended  to  do.  We  be- 
lieve that  known  unto  God  are  all  his  works  and  ways  from 
the  beginning ;  and  that  all  the  dispensations  of  his  gi-ace,  as 
well  as  of  his  providence,  and  among  the  rest,  the  effectual 
calling  and  salvation  of  every  believer,  entered  into  his  plan 
from  all  eternity;  "yet  so,  (as  our  Confession  of  Faith  de- 
clares,) as  that  thereby  neither  is  God  the  author  of  sin,  nor 
is  violence  offered  to  the  will  of  the  creatures,  nor  is  the  liberty 
or  contingency  of  second  causes  taken  away,  but  rather  esta- 
blished." In  short,  the  sum  of  our  belief  in  reference  to  this 
great  economy,  may  be  expressed  in  one  sentence — "  All  that 
is  evil  in  man  is  of  himself,  and  to  him  belongs  the  blame  of 
it ;  and  all  that  is  good  in  him  is  of  God,  and  to  him  belongs 
the  praise  of  it."  We  are  aware  that  this  system  of  belief 
may  be  perverted,  misrepresented,  and  made  perfectly  odious, 
by  drawing  consequences  from  it  which  we  utterly  reject  and 
abhor.  For  such  perversions  and  unjust  inferences,  the  ad- 
vocates of  no  creed  are  responsible.  Let  any  one  carefully 
and  dispassionately  read  over  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  and  he  will  soon  perceive  that  the  pro- 
fessed representations  of  it  which  are  daily  proclaimed  from 
the  pulpit  and  the  press  are  wretched  slanders,  for  which  no 
apology  can  be  found  but  in  the  ignorance  of  their  authors. 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  29 

2.  Consider  the  ample  support  of  this  system  which  is 
found  in  the  Word  of  God.  The  first  question  which  every 
sincere  and  devout  inquirer  after  truth  will  ask,  is,  "  what 
saith  the  Scripture  ?"  Our  own  reasonings  and  cavils,  when 
thrown  into  the  scale  against  revelation,  are  nothing.  "  Let 
God  be  true  and  every  man  a  liar."  Now  it  is  confidently 
believed,  that  when  we  reverently  open  the  book  of  God,  and 
impartially  examioie  what  it  teaches  concerning  the  important 
points  which  distinguish  our  doctrine  from  other  forms  of  be- 
lief, we  shall  find  the  divine  authority  clearly  and  strongly  in 
favour  of  that  creed  which  Presbyterians  profess  to  receive. 

Those  who  doubt  this,  are  requested  seriously,  and  with 
prayer,  to  ponder  the  following  Scriptures  : 

By  one  man  sin  entered  into  the  world.  By  the  offence 
of  one  judgment  came  upon  aU  men  to  condemnation.  By 
one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners,  Romans  v. 
18,  19.  For  all  have  sinned  and  come  short  of  the  glory  of 
God,  being  justified  freely  by  his  grace,  through  the  redemp- 
tion that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  Therefore,  we  conclude  that  a 
man  is  justified  by  faith  without  the  deeds  of  the  law.  Do 
we  then  make  void  the  law  through  faith  ?  God  forbid ;  yea, 
we  establish  the  law,  Romans  iii.  24 — 30.  By  grace  are  ye 
saved  through  faith,  and  that  not  of  yourselves,  it  is  the  gift 
of  God.  Not  of  works,  lest  any  man  should  boast.  For  if  it 
be  of  works,  it  is  no  more  of  grace,  otherwise,  grace  is  no 
more  grace,  Ephes.  ii.  5.  Rom.  xi.  6.  Known  unto  God  are 
all  his  works  from  the  beginning  of  the  world,  Acts  xv.  18. 
As  many  as  were  ordained  to  eternal  life  believed.  Acts  xiii. 
48.  Elect  according  to  the  foreknowledge  of  God  the  Father, 
through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit,  unto  obedience,  and  sprin- 
kling of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  1  Peter  i.  2.  According  as 
he  hath  chosen  us  in  him,  before  the  foundation  of  the  world, 
that  we  should  be  holy  and  without  blame  before  him  in  love ; 
having  predestinated  us  unto  the  adoption  of  children,  by  Jesus 
Christ  to  himself,  according  to  the  good  pleasure  of  his  will,  to 
the  praise  of  the  glory  of  his  grace,  wherein  he  hath  made  us 
accepted  in  the  beloved,  Ephes.  i.  4 — 7.  Whom  he  did  fore- 
know, he  also  did  predestinate  to  be  conformed  to  the  image 
of  his  Son,  that  he  might  be  the  first-born  among  many  breth- 
ren. Moreover,  whom  he  did  predestinate,  them  he  also  called ; 
and  whom  he  called,  them  he  also  justified ;  and  whom  he  jus- 
tified, them  he  also  glorified.  What  shall  we  say,  then,  to 
these  things  ?  If  God  be  for  us,  who  can  be  against  us  ? 
Who  shall  lay  any  thing  to  the  charge  of  God's  elect?  It  is 
God  that  justifieth  ;  who  is  be  that  eondemneth  ?     It  is  Christ 


so  DOCTRINE  0?  THE 

that  died,  yea,  rather  that  is  risen  again,  who  is  even  at  the 
right  hand  of  God,  who  also  maketh  intercession  for  us.  Who 
shall  separate  us  from  the  love  of  Christ  ?  Shall  tribulation  or 
distress,  or  persecution,  or  famine,  or  nakedness,  or  peril,  or 
sword  ?  Nay,  in  all  these  things  we  are  more  than  conquerors 
through  him  that  loved  us.  For  I  am  persuaded  that  neither 
death  nor  hfe,  nor  angels,  nor  principalities,  nor  powers,  nor 
things  present,  nor  things  to  come,  nor  height,  nor  depth,  nor 
any  other  creature,  shall  be  able  to  separate  us  from  the  love 
of  God  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  our  Lord.  Rom.  viii.  29 — 39. 
Be  thou  partaker  of  the  afflictions  of  the  Gospel,  according  to 
the  power  of  God;  who  hath  saved  us,  and  called  us  with  an 
holy  caUing,  not  according  to  our  works,  but  according  to  his 
own  purpose  and  grace  which  was  given  us  in  Christ  Jesus  be- 
fore the  world  began,  2  Timothy  i.  8,  9.  Being  confident  of 
this  very  thing,  that  he  which  hath  begun  a  good  work  in  you, 
will  perform  it  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ,  Philippians  i.  6. 
My  sheep  hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and  they  follow 
me,  and  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life,  and  they  shall  never 
perish,  neither  shall  any  pluck  them  out  of  my  hand,  John  x. 
27,  28.  The  mountains  shall  depart,  and  the  hills  be  re- 
moved ;  but  my  kindness  shall  not  depart  from  thee ;  neither 
shall  the  covenant  of  my  peace  be  removed,  saith  the  Lord, 
that  hath  mercy  on  thee,  Isa.  liv.  10.  Who  maketh  thee  to 
differ  from  another  ?  And  what  hast  thou  that  thou  hast  not 
received  ?  Now,  if  thou  didst  receive  it,  why  dost  thou  glory 
as  if  thou  hadst  not  received  it  ?  1  Cor.  iv.  7.  Holy  Father, 
keep  through  thine  own  name  those  whom  thou  hast  given  me, 
that  they  may  be  one,  as  we  are.  I  pray  not  that  thou  shouldst 
take  them  out  of  the  world,  but  that  thou  shouldst  keep  them 
from  the  evil,  John  xvii.  11,  15.  Father,  I  will  that  they  also, 
whom  thou  hast  given  me,  be  with  me  where  I  am,  that  they 
may  behold  my  glory  which  thou  hast  given  me;  for  thou  lovedst 
me  before  the  foundation  of  the  world,  John  xvii.  24.  Even 
so,  then  at  this  present  time,  also,  there  is  a  remnant  according 
to  the  election  of  grace.  And  if  by  grace,  then  is  it  no  more 
of  works  ;  otherwise  grace  is  no  more  grace.  But  if  it  be  of 
works,  then  it  is  no  more  of  grace,  otherwise  work  is  no  more 
work.  What  then  ?  Israel  hath  not  obtained  that  which  he 
seeketh  for ;  but  the  election  hath  obtained  it,  and  the  rest  were 
blinded.  Rom.  xi.  5 — 7.  Thy  people  shall  be  Avilling  in  the 
day  of  thy  power,  Psalm  ex.  3.  Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you  and  ye  shall  be  clean ;  from  all  your  filthiness 
and  fr0m  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart  will  I 
give  you,  and  a  right  spirit  will  I  put  within  you  ;  and  I  will 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  31 

take  away  the  hard  and  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  will 
give  you  an  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within 
you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes,  and  ye  shaU  keep 
my  judgments  and  do  them.  Ezekiel  xxxvi.  26-— -28. 

The  reader  of  these  pages  is  eamesfly  requested  to  ponder 
seriously  the  foregoing  Scriptures ;  to  examine  them  in  their 
connection ;  to  interpret  them  with  the  same  candour  and  sim- 
plicity with  which  he  is  wont  to  interpret  other  writings,  and 
then  to  say  whether  they  do  not  manifestly  support  those  pe- 
culiar doctrines  for  which  Presbyterians  are  so  much  re- 
proached and  vilified?  The  question  is,  not  whether  the  inge- 
nuity of  biblical  criticism  may  not  torture  these  passages  into 
a  different  meaning ;  but  whether  the  plain,  natural,  and  ob- 
vious meaning  be  not  that  which  will  sustain  the  system  in 
support  of  which  we  are  wont  to  quote  them  ?  If  it  will,  the 
controversy  is  at  an  end ;  for  whatever  is  plainly  contained 
in  Scripture,  we  are  bound  to  receive. 

3.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  the  system  of  doctrine  main- 
tained by  the  Presbyterian  Church,  is  the  same  in  substance 
with  that  which  was  nudntained  by  the  Witnesses  for  the 
truth,  andby  the  great  body  of  the  Reformers,  andichichhas 
generally  been  styled,  "  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation.'''' 

There  is  probably  no  class  of  professing  Christians  more 
remote  than  Presbyterians,  from  a  disposition  to  appeal  to 
human  authority  as  a  test  of  truth.  Our  ecclesiastical  formu- 
laries, as  well  as  our  history,  proclaim  that  we  consider  the 
Scriptures  as  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice ;  and 
that  we  are  distinguished  from  Prelatists  and  others,  by  con- 
tending for  this  principle,  in  reference  to  every  department  of 
the  Christian  system.  Yet  it  is,  undoubtedly,  an  interesting 
fact,  well  worthy  of  being  noticed,  and  adapted  to  confirm 
our  confidence  in  the  system  which  we  have  embraced,  that 
all  the  great  and  good  men  who  took  the  lead  in  bearing  tes- 
timony against  en*or,  and  in  reforming  the  Church  from  the 
corruptions  of  the  Papacy,  however  diverse  in  their  views  on 
other  points, — agreed,  with  scarcely  an  exception,  in  adopt- 
ing and  maintaining  that  system  of  doctrine  which  is  popu- 
larly denominated  Calvinism,  and  which  many  of  its  bigoted 
opponents  are  so  ignorant  as  to  imagine  that  Calvin  invented. 
The  Waldenses,  those  far-famed  witnesses  of  the  truth, 
whom  all  Protestants  profess  to  venerate,  but  whom  few, 
alas !  appear  to  understand  and  follow;  not  only  adopted  in  sub- 
stance, the  whole  Presbyterian  government  and  disciphne,  as 
we  have  seen  in  a  former  page  ;  but  also,  aU  the  leading 
features  of  our  system  of  doctrine.     The  following  extract 


32  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 

from  one  of  their  confessions  is  conclusive.  The  eleventh 
article  is  in  these  words  :  •'  God  saves  from  that  corruption 
and  condemnation,  into  which  all  have  fallen,  those  whom 
he  has  chosen  from  the  foundation  of  the  world,  not  for  any 
disposition^  faith,  or  holiness  which  he  foresaw  in  them, 
but  of  his  mere  mercy  in  Jesus  Christ  his  Son;  passing  by 
all  the  rest,  according  to  the  irreprehensible  reason  of  his 
free  will  and  justice^  And  in  one  of  their  ancient  Cate- 
chisms, they  tell  us,  that  the  real  Church  of  Christ  consists 
of  the  elect  of  God,  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the 
world,  by  the  grace  of  God,  through  the  merit  of  Christ, 
gathered  together  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  foreordained  to 
eternal  life'''  (See  Gilly's  "  Narrative  of  Researches 
among  the  Waldenses,"  Appendix.  See,  also,  Sir  Samuel 
Morland,  p.  40,  48,  &c.  Milner,  in.  p.  440,  441.)  The 
same  general  system  was  undoubtedly  adopted  by  John 
Wickliffe,  the  "  morning  star  of  the  Reformation;"  by  John 
Huss  and  Jerome  of  Prague,  his  companion  in  faith,  and  in 
martyrdom.  "  The  distinguishing  tenet  of  Wickliffe  in  re- 
ligion," says  Milner,  "was,  undoubtedly,  the  election  of 
grace."  And  the  same  writer  gives  an  account  of  Huss  and 
Jerome,  which  precludes  all  doubt  that,  in  their  general  sys- 
tem, they  followed  Wickliffe,  who  was  a  disciple  of  Augus- 
tine. 

When  we  come  down  to  the  time  of  the  Reformation,  the 
same  general  fact  continues  to  be  unquestionable.  It  is  noto- 
rious that  Luther,  long  before  Calvm  was  known  as  a  Re- 
former, or  even  as  a  theological  writer,  publicly  maintamed 
the  doctrines  of  the  divine  decrees,  and  human  impotence,  as 
thoroughly  as  Calvin  ever  did.  The  proof  of  this  is  so  com- 
plete, that  no  one  well  informed  in  the  history  of  those  times 
Avill  dare  to  deny  it.  Melancthon,  the  friend,  coadjutor,  and 
survivor  of  Luther,  also  held  in  substance  the  ver}''  same  sys- 
tem. Those  who  read  the  statements,  and  the  extracts  from 
his  writings,  which  appear  in  the  pages  of  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Scott,  the  Episcopal  continuator  of  Milner's  Ecclesiastical 
History,  can  no  longer  doubt  of  this.  Melancthon  assured 
Calvin  that  he  concurred  with  him  in  his  creed;  and  Calvin, 
in  his  Preface  to  Melancthon's  book  of  "  Common  Places," 
recommends  the  work  as  one,  in  the  doctrines  of  which  he 
concurred.  Zuingle,  the  apostolic  reformer  of  Svi^itzerland, 
it  is  well  known,  adopted  the  same  system.  After  all  that 
has  been  alleged  to  the  contrary,  nothing  is  more  certain  than 
that  he  maintained  the  doctrines  of  the  depravity  and  moral 
impotence  of  hiunan  nature,  the  sovereign  election  of  grace, 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  3 

and  the  perseverance  of  the  saints  in  hoUness,  as  decisively, 
and  zealously  as  any  of  his  contemporaries.  Yet  Zuingle 
died  before  Calvin  was  ever  heard  of  as  a  friend  to  the  Re- 
formation ;  and  before  he  had  published  a  sentence  in  refer- 
ence to  it.  Of  course,  the  Swiss  reformer  was  indebted  for 
no  part  of  his  creed,  to  the  ministry  or  the  writings  of  the  il- 
lustrious pastor  of  Geneva.  The  same  may  be  said  of  Bucer, 
of  Peter  Martyr,  of  Bullinger,  of  Bugenhagius,  of  Junius, 
and,  in  general,  of  all  the  leaders  of  the  Reformation  on  the 
continent  of  Europe. 

When  we  pass  over  to  Great  Britain  precisely  the  same 
fact  appears.  Hamilton,  Wishart,  Archbishop  Cranmer, 
Bishops  Ridley,  Hooper,  and  Xatimer,  Archbishops  Grindal 
and  Whitgift,  John  Knox,  and,  in  short,  all  the  Reformers  of 
any  name,  both  in  North  and  South  Britain,  were  doctrinal 
Calvinists.  This  fact,  indeed,  has  been  denied ;  but  not  by 
any  candid,  well  informed  man.  The  proof  of  it  is  com- 
plete. Let  any  one  read  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  of  the 
Church  of  England,  especially  the  ninth,  tenth,  eleventh,  and 
seventeenth, — let  him  particularly,  ponder  well  the  last  men- 
tioned article,  which  treats  directly  of  the  doctrine  of  Pre- 
destination, and  ask,  whether  it  is  possible  fairly  to  give  it 
any  other  than  a  Calvinistic  interpretation.  I  am  not,  in- 
deed, ignorant  that  prejudice  and  bigotry  have  sometimes 
contended  that  this  seventeenth  article  is  decidedly  Anti-cal- 
vinistic  in  its  import;  and  as  proof  of  this,  the  qualifying 
clause  toward  the  end  of  it  is  cited  as  sufficient  evidence. 
Now,  it  so  happens  that  that  qualifying  clause  is  nearly 
copied  from  Calvins's  Institutes ;  and  the  latter  part  of  it  is  a 
literal  translation  of  that  Reformer's  caution  against  the  abuse 
of  this  doctrine  !  Again  :  let  him  who  entertains  a  doubt  on 
this  subject,  read  the  celebrated  Catechism  of  Dr.  Nowell, 
which  was  reviewed,  corrected,  formally  approved,  and  or- 
dered to  be  published,  as  containing  a  summary  of  true  doc- 
trine, by  the  same  Convocation  which  formed  and  adopted 
the  Thirty-nine  Articles",  and  which  is  acknowledged  by  the 
bitterest  enemies  of  Calvin  to  be  decisively  Calvinistic.  Let 
him  read  the  Lambeth  A.rticles,  drawn  up  and  signed  by  Arch- 
bishop Whitgift,  and  also  subscribed  by  the  Archbishop  of 
York,  and  at  least  three  other  leading  prelates,  and  by  them 
transmitted  to  the  University  of  Cambridge,  as  containing 
doctrines  "  corresponding  with  those  professed  in  the  Church 
of  England."  Let  him  recollect,  that  for  more  than  half  a 
century  after  the  Reformation  was  established  in  England, 
Calvin's  Body  of  Divinity,  commonly  styled  his  "Institutes 


34  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 

of  the  Christian  Religion,"  was  publicly  received  and  studied 
as  a  standard  of  orthodoxy  in  both  the  Universities  ;  and  that 
by  a  Convocation  held  at  Oxford,  the  work  was  recommended 
to  the  general  study  of  the  nation. 

Now,  is  it  not  remarkable  that  all  the  great  and  good  men 
who  took  the  lead  in  the  Reformation,  men  of  different  lan- 
guages, habits,  and  prejudices ;  m&ny  of  them  absolute  stran- 
gers to  each  other,  not  merely  m  Geneva,  but  in  Great  Britain, 
in  France,  in  Germany,  in  Holland,  in  Switzerland — nay, 
wherever  the  darkness  of  the  Papacy  was  dissipated,  and  her 
corruptions  abandoned — all — all,  with  scarcely  an  exception, 
should  become  advocates  in  substance,  of  that  system,  which 
we  denominate  Calvinism  ;  that  appealing  to  the  Bible,  as  the 
common  repository  and  standard  of  Gospel  truth,  they  should 
with  almost  entire  unanimity,  without  concert,  and  however 
divided  as  to  other  points,  be  so  harmoniously  united  in  the 
great  doctrines  of  sovereign  grace,  that  they  have  ever  since 
been  styled  emphatically,  '  the  doctrines  of  the  Reformation?'' 
How  shall  v/e  account  for  it,  that  brethren  who  claim  to  be 
well  informed,  should  represent  this  system  as  originating 
with  Calvin,  and  peculiar  to  him  and  his  followers,  when,  to 
say  nothing  of  its  Scriptural  authority,  every  one  knows  it 
was,  in  substance,  espoused  by  Augustine,  a  thousand  years 
before  Calvin  was  born  ;  by  all  the  witnesses  of  the  truth, 
during  the  "  dark  ages,"  and  by  all  those  venerable  men, 
whose  piety,  wisdom,  and  devotedness,  have  been  the  theme 
of  gratitude  and  praise,  for  three  hundred  years  ?  Above  all, 
how  shall  we  account  for  it,  that  brethren,  who  find  no  lan- 
guage too  strong  by  which  to  express  their  profound  veneration 
for  the  spirit,  the  opinions,  and  the  services  of  Cranmer,  Parker, 
Whitgift,  and  other  distinguished  prelates,  who,  under  God, 
conducted  and  completed  the  Reformation  in  England  ;  while 
they  are  never  tired  of  vilifying  the  character,  and  denouncing 
the  creed  of  the  venerable  Calvin,  whose  name  those  very 
Wded  men  never  mentioned  but  with  epithets  of  the  highest 
honour ;  whose  writings  they  made  their  text  books  for  stu- 
dents of  theology,  and  whose  person  and  ministry  they  re- 
garded as  among  the  most  glorious  lights  of  Christendom  ? 

4.  As  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  our  Confession  is 
most  in  accordance  with  Scripture,  and  was  common  to  all 
the  Reformers,  so  it  has,  to  say  the  least,  quite  as  few  diffi- 
culties attending  it  as  any  other  system. 

It  is  not  pretended  that  the  Calvinistic  system  is  free  from 
all  difficulties.  When  finite  creatures  are  called  to  scan  either 
the  works,  or  the  revealed  will  of  an  Infinite  Being,  they 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  35 

must  be  truly  demented,  if  they  expect  to  find  nothing  which 
they  cannot  comprehend.  Accordingly,  when  we  undertake  to 
solve  some  of  the  difficulties  which  that  system  of  Christian 
doctiine,  usually  styled  Calvinism,  presents,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  "  such  knowledge  is  too  wonderful  for  us  ;  it  is  high,  we 
cannot  attain  unto  it."  How  to  reconcile  what  the  Scriptures 
plainly  reveal,  on  the  one  hand,  concerning  the  entire  depen- 
dence of  man,  and  on  the  other,  concerning  his  activity  and 
responsibility;  how  to  explain  the  perfect  foreknowledge  and 
predestination  of  God,  in  consistency  with  the  perfect  free- 
dom and  moral  agency  of  his  intelligent  creatures,  is  a  prob- 
lem, which  no  thinking  man  expects  fully  to  solve.  But  the 
question  is,  are  there  fewer  difficulties  attending  any  other 
system  ?  Especially,  are  there  fewer  difficulties  attending  the 
Arminian  or  Pelagian  systems,  which  are  commonly  the  resort 
of  those  who  reject  Calvinism  ?  There  are  not :  nay,  instead 
of  being  less,  they  are  greater,  far  greater,  both  in  number  and 
-magnitude.  The  writer  of  these  pages  rests  in  the  Calvinistic 
system  with  a  confidence  daily  increasing,  not  only  because  the 
more-  he  examines  it,  the  more  clearly  it  appears  to  him  to  be 
taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures ;  but  also,  because  the  more 
frequently  and  impartially  he  compares  the  amount  of  the  dif- 
ficulties on  both  sides,  the  more  heavily  by  far  they  seem  to 
him  to  press  against  the  Arminian  and  Pelagian  schemes. 

It  is  easy,  and  in  the  estimation  of  the  superficial  and  un- 
reflecting, it  is  conclusive,  to  object,  that  Calvinism  has  a 
tendency  to  cut  the  nerves  of  all  spiritual  exertion  ;  that  if  we 
are  elected,  we  shall  be  saved,  do  what  we  ivill ;  and  if  not 
elected,  we  shall  be  lost,  do  what  w^e  can.  But  is  it  not  per- 
fectly evident  that  this  objection  lies  with  quite  as  much  force 
against  the  Arminian  or  Pelagian  hypothesis  ?  Arminians  and 
Pelagians  grant  that  all  men  will  not  be  actually  saved ;  that  the 
salvation  or  perdition  of  each  individual  is  distinctly  foreknown 
by  God  ;  and  that  the  event  will  certainly  happen  as  he  foresees 
that  it  will.  May  not  a  caviller  then  say,  with  quite  as  much 
appearance  of  justice  in  this  case,  as  in  the  other ;  "  the  re- 
sult as  to  my  salvation  is  known  and  certain.  If  I  am  to  be 
saved,  no  anxiety  about  it  is  necessary;  and  if  I  am  to  perish, 
all  anxiety  about  it  would  be  useless  ?"  But  would  Arminians 
consider  this  objection  as  valid  against  their  creed?  Probably 
not.  Yet  it  is  just  as  valid  against  theirs  as  against  ours. 
The  truth  is,  Arminians  and  Pelagians,  by  resorting  to  their 
respective  schemes,  do  not  really  get  rid  of  one  particle  of  the 
difficulty  which  they  allege  against  the  Calvinistic  system ; 
they  only  place  it  one  step  further  hack,  but  must  meet  it  in 


36  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 

unimpaired  strength  after  all.  If  there  be  a  God,  who  is  en- 
dowed with  perfect  foreknowledge,  and  who  is,  and  always 
has  been,  acting  upon  a  plan,  of  which  he  knew  the  end  from 
the  beginning; — and  there  is  such  a  being,  or  there  is  no 
God, — then  all  the  difficulty  which  Hes  against  the  doctrine 
of  sovereign,  unconditional  predetermination,  lies  equally  and 
.  n  all  its  unmitigated  force,  against  the  doctrine  of  foreknow- 
.^edge,  and  certain  futurition;  and  all  the  shocking  conse- 
quences with  which  they  charge  our  system  of  belief,  are 
quite  as  legitimately  chargeable  on  their  own. 

No  other  proof  of  this  is  needed  than  the  subterfuges  to 
which  Arminians  and  Pelagians  have  resorted  in  order  to 
avoid  the  difficulties  which  they  have  felt  pressing  on  their 
schemes.  Some  have  denied  the  possibility  of  God's  fore- 
knowing future  contingencies,  alleging  that  such  foreknow- 
ledge cannot  be  conceived  or  admitted,  any  more  than  his 
power  of  doing  impossibilities,  or  doing  what  involves  a  con- 
tradiction. Others  have  denied  the  plenary  foreknowledge  ot 
God,  alleging  that  there  are  many  things  v/hich  he  does  not 
choose  to  know;  the  latter  making  the  divine  ignorance  of 
many  future  things  voluntary,  while  the  former  consider  it  as 
necessary.  Pelagians,  to  get  rid  of  the  same  difficulties,  take 
refuge  in  the  principle  that  the  Most  High  is  deficient  in 
power  as  well  as  in  knowledge ;  that  he  would  be  glad  to 
have  less  natural  and  moral  evil  in  his  kingdom  than  exists ; 
v/ould  be  glad  to  have  many  more  saved  than  will  be ;  but  is 
not  able  to  fulfil  his  wishes,  and  is  constantly  restrained  and 
thwarted  by  his  own  inability. 

Those  who  wish  to  see  a  specimen  of  the  difficulties  to 
which  good  men  feel  themselves  reduced  in  the  course  ot 
their  opposition  to  Calvinism,  may  see  a  remarkable  one  in 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Adam  Clarke's  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans.  There  they  will  find  an  amiable  and  pious  man 
driven  to  the  necessity  of  borrowing  from  the  Socinian  camp, 
a  denied  of  the  essential  omniscience  of  God,  because  he  saw 
that  this  attribute,  if  admitted,  would  unavoidably  land  him 
in  the  peculiarities  of  Calvinistic  theology  !  A  more  painful 
example  of  prejudice,  and  of  subserviency  to  the  dictates  of  a 
favourite  system,  can  scarcely  be  produced  in  the  annals  of 
Christian  piety ! 

Are  not  these  consequences  even  more  shocking  than  the 
worst  which  its  adversaries  charge  on  the  Calvinistic  system  ? 
Do  not  the  allegations,  that  God  is  not  omnipotent ;  that  he  is 
not  omniscient ;  that  he  is  not  acting  upon  an  eternal  plan ; 
that  his  purposes,  instead  of  being  eternal,  are  all  formed  in 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  37 

time ;  and  instead  of  being  immutable,  are  all  liable  every  day 
to  be  altered,  and  are,  in  fact,  altered,  by  the  changing  will  of 
his  creatures  ;  that  there  is  no  certainty  of  his  predictions  and 
promises  ever  being  fulfilled,  because  he  can  neither  foresee 
nor  control  future  contingencies  ;  that  it  is  his  express  design 
to  save  all  men  alike,  while  yet  it  is  certain  that  all  will  not 
be  saved ;  that  he  purposes  as  much,  and  does  as  much  for 
those  who  perish,  as  for  those  who  are  saved ;  but  is,  after  all, 
baffled  and  disappointed  in  his  hopes  concerning  them ;  that 
he  is  certain  of  nothing,  because  he  has  determined  on  nothing, 
and  is  not  able  to  do  all  his  pleasure ; — I  say,  do  not  these 
allegations  shock  every  serious  mind  ?  Are  they  not  equally 
contrary  to  Scripture,  to  reason,  and  to  all  the  hopes  of  the 
pious  ?  Yet  they  have  all  been  either  actually  avowed  by  the 
apponents  of  Calvinism,  or  they  follow  unavoidably  from  the 
principles  which  they  assume.  The  truth  is,  the  moment  we 
abandon  the  ground  that  Jehovah  is  acting  upon  an  infinitely 
wise  and  eternal  plan ;  that  he  is  ordering  all  things  according 
to  the  counsel  of  his  own  will ;  and  that  his  people  are  not 
their  own  saviours,  but  indebted  to  his  sovereign  grace  for 
every  real  good  which  they  possess  or  hope  for ;  the  moment 
we  abandon  this  ground,  we  abandon  all  that  is  solid  and 
tenable,  and  if  we  would  follow  up  unavoidable  consequences, 
must  plunge  into  the  gulf  of  Atheism. 

The  same  train  of  remark  may  be  applied  to  the  difficulties 
which  attend  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  The  humiliating 
fact,  that  all  men  are  by  nature  sinners ;  that  their  nature  is 
corrupt;  that  is,  that  there  is  such  a  tendency  to  sin  in  all  the 
children  of  men,  that  no  mere  man  of  all  the  human  family 
ever  failed  of  falling  into  it ; — is  not  only  taught  in  Scripture, 
but  is  notorious  to  universal  observation.  Now  the  question 
is,  how  shall  we  account  for  this  fact?  Presbyterians,  speak- 
ing the  language  of  Calvinism,  of  their  Confession  of  Faith, 
and,  above  all,  as  they  think,  of  the  Bible,  say  that  Adam  was 
constituted  the  covenant  head  of  his  posterity,  that  they  were 
to  stand  or  fall  with  him ;  that  when  he  fell,  all  his  posterity  in 
that  first  transgression,  sinned  in  him,  and  fell  with  him ;  in 
other  words,  that  the  guilt  of  this  sin,  in  virtue  of  a  sovereign 
and  righteous  constitution,  was  imputed  to  his  posterity' — that 
is,  it  was  set  to  their  account ;  they  incurred  the  same  forfeit 
as  if  they  had  themselves  committed  it.  And  hence,  as  Adam, 
by  that  transgression,  became  mortal,  lost  the  moral  image  ol 
God,  and  incurred  the  penalty  of  a  corrupt  nature — so  all  his 
posterity,  in  consequence  of  their  covenant  relation  to  him, 
came  into  the  world  mort?1   deoraved,  and  guilty,  and  liable 


38  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 

to  the  same  penalty,  in  all  its  extent,  which  fell  upon  him. 
This,  Presbyterians  profess  to  believe,  is  the  meaning  of  those 
Scriptures  which  declare,  "in  Adam  all  die,"  1  Cor.  xv.  22. 
"  By  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  made  sinners." 
"  By  the  offence  of  one  judgment  came  upon  all  men  to  con- 
demnation," Romans  v.  18,  19.  They  do  not  suppose,  in- 
deed, that  there  is  here  any  transfer  of  moral  character,  or  any 
transfusion  of  Adam's  act  into  his  posterity;  but  that,  in  con- 
sequence of  the  covenant  relation  in  which  he  and  they  stood, 
th€y  are  treated  as  if  they  had  themselves  committed  the  sin 
by  which  our  race  fell.  This,  and  this  only,  is  the  imputation 
of  the  sin  of  our  first  parents  for  which  Presbyterians  contend. 

Pelagians,  revolting  at  this  view  of  the  subject,  hope  to  re- 
move all  difficulty  by  saying  that  man's  nature  is  not  corrupt; 
that  all  men  come  into  the  world  in  the  sa,me  state  of  entire 
innocence  that  Adam  was  when  first  created ;  and  that  to  sup- 
pose men  to  be  born  with  a  corrupt  nature,  would  be  dishon- 
ourable to  God,  and  inconsistent  with  moral  agency.  They 
acknowledge,  however,  that  all  men  are  in  fact,  sinners ;  and 
that  all  begin  to  sin  as  soon  as  they  become  capable  of  moral 
action.  But  is  any  difficulty  which  is  supposed  to  attend  the 
Calvinistic  doctrine  really  removed,  or  even  diminished,  by 
this  hypothesis  ?  Is  it  more  honourable  to  God,  or  less  re- 
volting to  our  sense  of  justice,  to  represent  the  whole  human 
family,  without  the  adoption  of  any  covenant  arrangement,  or 
representative  principle,  as  brought  into  being,  and  placed  by 
their  Creator  in  circumstances  in  which  not  one  of  their  num- 
ber ever  fails  of  falling  into  sin  1 

Arminians,  or  semi-Pelagians,  also  rejecting  the  Calvinistic 
doctrine  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin  to  his  posterity,  but 
at  the  same  time,  perceiving  that  the  Pelagian  hypothesis  is 
utterly  unscriptural,  take  another  method  of  removing  the  dif- 
ficulty. They  tell  us  that  Adam  was  not  constituted  the  co- 
venant head  of  his  posterity,  and  that  the  guilt  of  his  first  sin 
was  not  imputed  to  them ;  but  yet  that,  in  virtue  of  their  con- 
nection with  him,  and  descent  from  him,  they  come  into  the 
world  mortal,  and  infected  with  a  sinful  nature ;  but  that  it  is 
on  account  of  their  own  sin,  and  not  that  of  Adam,  that  they 
are  guilty,  and  exposed  to  any  penalty.  Is  it  not  plain,  how- 
ever, that  this  hypothesis,  instead  of  removing  the  difficulty 
vhich  its  advocates  suppose  to  lie  against  the  Calvinistic  doc- 
o-ine  of  original  sin,  rather  increases  it  ?  On  what  principle  is 
<t,  according  to  them,  that  mortality,  and  a  depraved  nature 
descend  from  Adam  to  his  posterity  ?  Not,  it  seems,  in  virtue 
of  any  covenant  relation  between  them ;  not  on  the  principle 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  W 

«f  representative  headship  ;  but  of  an  arbitrary  constitution, 
ordering  it  so  by  a  mere  act  of  authority.  And  while  they  re- 
ject the  doctrine  of  imputation,  they  are  constrained  to  confess 
that  in  consequence,  somehow,  of  Adam's  sin,  all  his  posterity 
coine  into  the  world  with  a  depraved  nature,  which,  if  not  re- 
moved, must  lead  to  everlasting  destruction.  And  is  this  no 
evil,  no  penalty  ?  But  if  being  born  in  this  condition  be  a 
penalty,  and  a  heavy  penalty  too,  why  was  this  penalty  in- 
flicted upon  them  ?  It  cannot  be  said  that  it  was  on  account 
of  their  depravity ;  for  this  would  be  to  make  their  depravity 
the  procuring  cause  of  itself.  No  imputation  of  our  first 
father's  sin!  and  yet  acknowledge  that  in  consequence  of  that 
sin,  isome  of  the  most  awful  inflictions  are  sent  upon  us  that 
can  aflect  moral  and  immortal  beings  !  No  imputation ! 
Whence,  then,  the  fact,  that  all  the  posterity  of  Adam  are 
born  depraved,  and  liable  to  death  ?  How  came  this  calamity 
upon  them?  Surely,  while  the  term  is  rejected,  we  have 
here  the  essence  of  aU  the  imputation  for  which  we  contend! 
Alas !  we  never  fail  to  augment  difficulties,  and  introduce 
additional  perj^lexity,  Avhenever  we  deviate  from  the  simple 
statements  of  God's  word ! 

5.  The  very  same  objections  were  made  in  .Apostolic  times 
to  the  doctrines  of  grace,  as  taught  by  the  inspired  Paul.  In 
the  ninth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  the  doctrine  of 
sovereign,  distinguishing  grace,  is  discussed  professedly  and 
at  length.  The  Apostle  boldly  announces  the  language  ot 
God  to  be,  "I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy, 
and  I  will  have  compassion  on  whom  I  will  have  compassion. 
So  then  it  is  not  of  him  that  willeth,  nor  of  him  that  runneth, 
but  of  God  that  showeth  mercy."  He  then  asks,  "  Is  there 
unrighteousness  with  God  ?  God  forbid."  Still  the  Apostle 
is  aware  that  a  blind  caviller  may  continue  to  object.  He 
therefore  adds — "  Thou  wilt  say,  then,  unto  me,  why  doth 
he  yet  find  fault  ?  for  who  hath  resisted  his  will  ?"  The  very 
language  and  scope  of  this  objection  show  that  the  Apostle 
meant  that  his  doctrine  should  be  understood  in  a  Calvinistic 
sense,  for  upon  any  other  ground,  the  objection  would  be 
irrelevant.  How  does  he  reply  to  it  ?  Does  he  retract  or 
disavow  that  view  of  the  subject  on  which  the  cavil  is  evidently 
founded  ?  Not  at  all.  He  attempts  no  mitigation  or  softening 
His  1-eply  is — "  Nay,  but  O  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest 
against  God  ?  Shall  the  thing  formed  say  to  him  that  formed 
it,  why  hast  thou  made  me  thus  ?  Hath  not  the  potter  power 
over  the  clay,  of  the  same  lump  to  make  one  vessel  unto 
honour,  and  another  unio  dishonour  i'  What  if  God,  willing 
4 


40  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 

to  show  his  wrath,  and  to  make  his  power  known,  endured 
with  much  long  suffering  the  vessels  of  wrath  fitted  to  de- 
struction :  and  that  he  might  make  known  the  riches  of  his 
glory  on  the  vessels  of  mercy,  which  he  had  afore  prepared 
unto  glory  ?"  Here  the  Apostle  has  anticipated  the  whole 
force  of  the  Arminian  objection.  It  cannot  be  pushed  further 
than  he  has  carried  it  in  a  single  sentence.  No  addition  has 
ever  been  made  to  its  force  by  the  most  ingenious  gainsayer. 
Yet  the  Apostle  answers  it,  not  by  an  attempt  to  explain,  to 
bring  down  'to  human  comprehension,  or  to  show  that  his 
statements  had  been  misconstrued.  Nothing  like  it.  He 
resolves  the  whole  into  the  supremacy,  the  sovereignty  and  the 
incomprehensibleness  of  God  and  his  counsels,  and  calls  upon 
all  to  yield  to  this  great  and  all  governing  principle ;  closing 
as  he  does  in  another  place,  when  on  the  same  subject,  with 
that  memorable  exclamation — "  O  the  depth  of  the  riches  both 
of  the  wisdom  and  knowledge  of  God !  how  unsearchable  are 
his  judgments,  and  his  ways  past  finding  out!" 

6.  It  is  a  strong'  argument  in  favour  of  that  creed  which 
the  Confession  of  Faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  exhibits, 
that  every  serious,  devout  professor  of  religion,  however  de- 
cided as  an  Arminian  or  Semi-Pelagian  he  may  be,  in  preach- 
ing, or  in  conversation,  never  fails  to  be  a  Calvinist  in  prayer. 
So  far  as  my  observation  has  gone,  the  most  zealous  advocates 
of  Arminianism  almost  always  lay  aside  their  favourite  opin- 
ions, when  they  pour  out  their  hearts  in  prayer,  under  a  feel- 
ing sense  of  their  dependence  and  their  un worthiness.  How 
many  examples  have  we  of  this  in  thousands  of  pulpits,  and 
in  thousands  of  published  volumes,  in  which  the  preaching  is 
decidedly  semi-Pelagian,  while  the  prayers  are  quite  as  deci- 
dedly Calvinistic  !  The  reason  of  this  inconsistency  is  per- 
fectly evident.  In  preaching  and  conversation,  errorists  argue 
to  maintain  a  point ;  in  prayer,  they  supplicate  grace.  In  the 
former,  they  are  actuated  by  the  spirit  of  controvertists  ;  in 
the  latter,  they  feel  their  entire  dependence  as  creatures,  and 
their  lost  and  perishing  conditions  as  sinners.  *'  A  prayer," 
says  one,  "  upon  Arminian  principles,  and  into  which  the  pe- 
culiarities of  that  system  were  introduced,  we  have  never  seen, 
and  never  have  heard.  It  would  be  a  theological  curiosity  suffi- 
ciently daring  in  its  structure ;  but  we  venture  to  say,  no  man 
of  Christian  humility  and  devotion  will  be  found  to  carry  it 
into  the  presence  of  his  God."  There, — there  the  sinner  ever 
acknowledges  his  weakness  and  depravity;  disclaims  all 
merit ;  confesses  his  multiplied  sins ;  adores  the  sovereign  un- 
merited mercy  of  God ;  ascribes  to  his  grace  every  good  de- 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  4a 

fihe  and  hope ;  glorifies  his  universal  government  over  aU  his 
creatures  and  all  their  actions;  and  ascribes  the  plan,  the 
execution,  and  the  consummation  of  that  deliverance  for  which 
he  hopes,  to  the  sovereign  undeserved  grace  of  God  abound- 
ing through  the  redemption  that  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  Now 
here  is  the  very  essence  of  Calvinism.  Not,  indeed,  of  those 
monstrous  absurdities  and  impieties  in  which  its  adversaries 
are  ever  fond  of  dressing  it  up ;  but  of  that  sober  and  scriptural 
system  which  is  found  in  our  formularies,  and  for  which  all 
whom  we  acknowledge  as  Calvinists,  have  ever  contended. 

7.  Finally,  it  is  worthy  of  serious  inquiry,  whether  the 
moral  influence  of  the  Calvinistic  system  has  not  been  found 
in  all  ages,  more  pure  and  happy,  than  that  of  any  other. 
For  this  appeal  no  apology  is  necessary.  That  system 
which  is  ever  found  connected  with  larger  measures  of  the 
spirit  of  prayer,  and  of  humble,  habitual,  deep  devotion;  that 
system  which  is  ever  productive  of  more  holy  living,  and  more 
active  Christian  benevolence  than  any  other,  we  may  confi- 
dently say,  without  presumption,  is  most  agreeable  to  Scrip- 
ture, and,  of  course,  most  worthy  of  being  embraced.  This 
allegation,  it  is  presumed,  will  not  be  denied.  For,  although 
the  opponents  of  this  system,  at  one  time,  charge  it  with  hav- 
ing a  tendency  to  promote  licentiousness ;  yet  much  more 
frequently  and  unanimously  they  charge  it  with  being  austere, 
over  strict  in  its  abstinence  from  worldly  pleasures,  and  stand- 
ing unnecessarily  aloof  from  the  various  forms  of  public 
amusement.  Is  it  not  notorious  that  the  followers  of  Augus- 
tine, of  the  Paulicians,  of  Claudius  of  Turin,  of  the  Wal- 
denses,  and  of  Wickliffe,  Huss,  and  Jerome,  in  the  dark  ages, 
were  far  more  pure  in  their  morals,  devout  in  their  habits,  and 
separated  from  a  corrupt  and  idolatrous  world,  than  any  ot 
their  contemporaries  ?  Will  it  not  be  granted  by  every  intel- 
ligent reader  that,  during  the  first  half  century  after  the  Refor- 
mation was  established  in  England,  when  no  one  doubts  that 
nineteen  twentieths  of  the  Protestant  clergy  in  that  kingdom, 
were  avowed  Calvinists,  the  state  both  of  piety  and  of  morals 
was  unspeakably  better,  than  during  the  latter  half  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  when  Arminianism  had,  among  the 
majority,  taken  its  place  ?  What  was  the  character  of  the 
two  thousand  "  ejected  ministers,"  in  the  reign  of  Charles  II. 
who  were  almost  to  a  man  Calvinists  ?  Were  they  not,  char- 
acteristically, as  a  body,  the  most  pious,  pure,  dihgent,  and 
exemplary  servants  of  Christ,  that  England  ever  saw  ?  Is  it 
not  universally  admitted,  that  the  state  of  piety  and  of  morals 


42  DOCTRINE  OF  THE 

has  ever  been  far  more  pure  in  Scotland,  than  m  England,  and 
pre-eminently,  in  those  districts  and  congregations  in  Scotland, 
in  which  Calvinism  has  maintained  a  steady  reign  ?  And  can 
any  part  of  the  world  be  named,  in  which,  for  nearly  a  hun- 
dred years  after  its  settlement,  purer  morals  reigned  than  in 
New  England,  in  which,  as  every  one  knows,  during  the 
greater  part  of  that  period,  a  Calvinistic  creed  almost  univer- 
sally prevailed  ? 

The  following  remarks  by  a  distinguished  divine  of  the 
Church  of  England,  who  professes  not  to  be  a  Calvinist,  are 
as  just  as  they  are  striking. 

"  Does  not  this  opinion  (of  the  immoral  tendency  of  Cal- 
vinism,) in  a  great  measure  originate  from  a  mistaken  concep- 
tion of  what  Calvinism  is  ?  Those  who  would  impute  all 
these  practical  evils  to  the  operation  of  Calvinism,  appear  to 
suppose  that  the  belief  of  the  Calvinist,  by  which  he  admits 
the  doctrine  of  personal  election,  necessarily  includes  also  an 
assumption  of  his  own  election.  The  Calvinist,  properly  so 
called^  is  no  enthusiast.  He  believes,  indeed,  in  the  eternal 
purposes  of  God,  as  to  the  salvation  of  the  elect ;  but  as  to 
the  hopes  of  his  own  salvation,  and  of  his  individual  interest 
in  those  purposes,  he  professes  to  obtain  it  by  the  evidences 
which  he  possesses  of  his  being  himself  in  a  renewed  and 
justified  state.  He  knows  from  the  word  of  God  that  the 
saints  are  '  chosen  to  salvation  through  sanctification  of  the 
Spirit,'  no  less  than  '  the  belief  of  the  truth,'  that  they  are 
'  predestinated  to  be  conformed  to  the  image  of  Christ,'  and 
'  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  which  God  hath 
before  ordained  that  they  should  walk  in  them.'  And  hence 
he  feels  that  it  is  only  so  long  as  he  experiences  the  sanctify- 
ing influences  of  the  Spirit  in  his  own  heart,  so  long  as  he 
himself  in  some  degree  reflects  the  image  of  Christ,  and  walks 
imperfectly  indeed,  but  yet  sincerely,  in  good  works,  that  he 
can  have  any  scriptural  grounds  for  concluding  that  he  is  one 
of  God's  elect,  and  will  have  his  portion  with  the  saints. 
This  is  true  Calvinism.  And  where  is  the  tendency  of  this 
doctrine  to  make  its  followers  slothful  or  confident,  negli- 
gent of  the  means  of  grace,  or  inattentive  to  moral  and  rela- 
tive duties  ?  While  the  practical  evils  which  Calvinism  is 
charged  with  producing,  are  so  prominently  and  studiously 
exhibited  to  view  by  many  of  its  opponents  ;  let  us  not  omit, 
on  the  other  hand,  to  do  justice  to  this  calumniated  system, 
nor  forget  the  abundant  good  Avhich  it  is  not  only  capable  of 
accomplishing,  but  which  it  actually  does  accomplish.  I 
have  no  doubt,  but  that  some  of  the  subhmesi  feelings  of 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  43 

pure  and  spiritual  delight  which  are  ever  experienced  on 
earth,  are  those  of  which  the  Calvinist  partakes,  when  in  his 
secret  retirement  with  his  God,  "  the  Spirit  bearing  witness 
with  his  spirit,"  and  shining  on  his  own  gracious  operation 
on  the  heart,  he  meditates  on  the  wonderful  and  unspeakable 
privileges  to  which,  through  Christ,  he  sees  himself  entitled ; 
and  resolving  all  the  blessings  which  have  been  already  re- 
ceived, or  are  prepared  for  him  hereafter,  into  the  eternal  pur- 
pose, and  electing  love  of  God,  his  Father,  and  absorbed  in  a 
holy  contemplation  of  the  divine  counsels  and  perfections,  he 
lies  prostrate  before  the  throne  of  grace,  in  deep  humiliation, 
and  with  overwhelming  joy.  I  do  not  say  that  others  have 
not  their  peculiar  feelings  of  spiritual  delight ;  but  these  are 
his.  And  does  he  rise  from  such  communion  wdth  his  God, 
without  enlarged  desires  and  resolutions  of  more  seriously 
devoting  himself  to  the  divine  favour,  of  more  decidedly 
overcoming  the  flesh  and  the  world,  and  of  more  faithfully 
doing  the  will,  and  advancing  the  glory  of  his  Lord  and 
Saviour?  Facts  and  experience  reply  to  this  inquiry. 
Among  no  denomination  or  description  of  professing  Chris- 
tians, is  there  to  be  found  a  larger  portion  of  humble,  pious, 
and  devoted  servants  of  God,  persons  of  a  truly  Christian 
spirit,  zealous  of  good  works,  and  exemplary  in  every  duty 
and  relation  of  life,  than  among  those  who  hold  the  Cal- 
vinistic  tenets.  I  am  sure  that  your  observation  and  your 
candour  will  fully  justify  this  statement.  And,  therefore,  so 
far  as  this  system  is  to  be  judged  of  by  its  actual  eflects,  I 
think  that,  on  a  candid  reconsideration  of  the  subject,  you 
will  be  induced  to  abandon  your  objection,  and  to  admit  that 
it  was  founded  on  an  erroneous  and  partial  view  of  the  sub- 
ject."* 

In  the  same  general  strain.  Bishop  Burnet,  who  was 
avowedly,  a  moderate  Arminian,  expresses  the  following 
opinion  as  to  the  practical  advantages  of  Calvinism.  "  A 
Calvinist  is  taught  by  his  opinions  to  think  meanly  of  him- 
self, and  to  ascribe  the  honour  of  aU  to  God ;  which  lays  in 
him  a  deep  foundation  for  humility :  he  is  also  much  inclined 
to  secret  prayer,  and  to  a  fixed  dependence  on  God." 

A  very  able  and  learned  foreign  lawyer,  the  author  of  the 
article  Predestination,  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Britanica,  though 
he  is  evidently  no  friend  to  Calvinism,  makes  the  following 
declaration:  "  there  is  one  remark  which  we  feel  ourselves 


*  "  Letters  addressed  to  a  Serious  and  Humble  Inquirer,  &c,"  by 
the  Rev.  Edward  Cooper.  Rector  of  Hamstall  Ridware. 
4* 


44  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE 

bound  in  justice  to  make,  although  it  appears  to  us  somewhat 
shigular.  It  is  this  :  that,  from  the  earUest  ages  down  to  our 
own  days,  if  we  consider  the  character  of  the  ancient  Stoics, 
the  Jewish  Essenes,  the  modern  Calvinists  and  Jansenists, 
when  compared  with  that  of  their  antagonists,  the  Epicureans, 
the  Sadducees,  the  Arminians,  and  the  Jesuists,  we  shall  find 
that  they  have  excelled  in  no  small  degree,  in  the  practice  of 
the  most  rigid  and  respectable  virtues ;  and  have  been  the 
highest  honour  of  their  own  ages,  and  the  best  models  for 
imitation  to  every  age  succeeding.  At  the  same  time,  it  must 
be  confessed,  that  their  virtues  have  in  general  been  rendered 
unaraiable  by  a  tinge  of  gloomy  and  severe  austerity." 

After  all,  however,  that  can  be  said  in  favour  of  that  doc- 
trinal system  which  it  is  our  happiness  and  honour,  as  a 
Church,  to  receive  ;  however  demonstrative  its  scriptural  sup- 
port, and  however  manifest  its  deduction  from  the  character 
of  an  infinitely  great,  wise,  and  good  Governor  of  the  uni- 
verse ;  it  will  never  cease,  while  human  nature  remains  as 
it  is,  to  be  hated,  reviled,  caricatured,  ridiculed,  and  rejected 
by  a  large  majority  of  the  professedly  religious  world.  It  is 
too  humbling  to  human  pride ;  it  calls  for  too  much  self- 
denial,  self-renunciation,  and  submission  of  the  mind  and  the 
heart  to  heavenly  teaching ;  demands  too  much  spirituality 
and  withdrawment  from  worldly  pleasures  and  amusements, 
not  to  be  opposed  by  the  mass  of  mankind,  and  even  by 
the  mass  of  professing  Christians,  who  have  little  taste  for 
the  Spirit  of  the  Gospel.  These  very  doctrines  were  thus 
treated  in  the  days  of  the  inspired  Apostles,  who  first  taught 
them  in  their  fulness  ;  and,  even  in  our  own  communion, 
those  of  our  members  who  are  most  tinctured  with  the 
worldly  spirit,  are  ever  found  most  apt  to  quarrel  with  the 
peculiarities  of  our  creed.  The  most  deeply  humble,  en- 
lightened and  spiritual  Christians  are,  in  all  ages  and  churches, 
ever  found  to  be  those  to  whom  the  doctrines  of  free  and 
sovereign  grace,  for  substance,  as  collected  in  our  Standards 
from  the  Scriptures  of  truth,  are  most  precious,  and  in  whose 
view  they  are  most  glorious. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 

The  Church,  being  a  social  body,  called  out  of  the  world, 

and  constituted  by  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  indispen- 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  45 

sably  needs  a  form  of  government.  No  Society  can  exist  in 
j)m*ity  and  peace  without  order.  And  no  order  can  be  main- 
tained without  authority,  laws,  and  a  set  of  officers  to  apply 
the  laws,  and  administer  the  form  of  order  which  may  have 
been  adopted.  Our  Master  in  heaven  has  commanded  "  his 
body,  the  Church,"  to  preserve  within  her  borders  purity  of 
doctrine,  and  holiness  of  conversation  ;  and  for  this  purpose 
to  "  warn  the  unruly;"  to  admonish  the  careless  ;  reclaim  the 
wandering ;  and  to  cut  off  those  who  are  obstinately  corrupt, 
either  in  faith  or  practice.  All  this  she  was  commanded  to 
do,  and  actually  did  perform,  while  all  the  civil  governments 
of  the  world  were  leagued  against  her,  and  the  fires  of  mar- 
tyrdom were  kindled  on  every  side.  Christ's  kingdom  is  not 
of  this  world.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  earthly  governments, 
and  ought  to  be  maintained  in  entire  disconnexion  and  inde- 
pendence of  them  all. 

Now,  it  is  obviously  impossible  for  the  Church  to  fulfil 
these  obligations,  without  such  an  ecclesiastical  constitution, 
such  a  system  of  laws,  and  such  a  body  of  officers,  as  will 
enable  her  to  apply  to  her  members  that  authority  v/hich  her 
Master  has  vested  in  her,  "  for  edification  and  not  for  destruc- 
tion." Hence,  the  necessity  of  organizing  the  Church  under 
some  distinct  and  definite  form.  It  is  not  asserted,  or  believed 
by  us,  that  any  one  form  of  government  is  essential  to  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Church ;  but,  simply,  that  if  purity  and  peace 
be  maintained,  there  must  be  some  form  adopted ;  and  that  that 
form  which  is  derived  from  the  word  of  God  is,  undoubtedly, 
the  best,  and  binding  on  all. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  claims  to  derive  her  form  of 
government  from  the  Holy  Scriptures.  She  is  persuaded 
that  the  New  Testament  most  distinctly  presents,  as  existing 
in  the  Apostolic  Church,  all  the  three  features  which  consti- 
tute the  peculiarities  of  her  ecclesiastical  polity,  viz :  the 
parity  of  her  ministers ;  the  government  of  the  Church  by 
Ruling  Elders  ;  and  the  attaimnent  of  unity  and  cooperation 
by  courts  of  review  and  control.  She  aims  to  avoid  the  un- 
authorised pretensions  of  Prelacy  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
lax,  inadequate  scheme  of  Independency  on  the  other  ;  and 
to  adopt  that  system  of  ministerial  equality,  and  efficient  re- 
presentation in  the  government  of  the  Church,  which  at  once 
guards,  as  far  as  possible,  against  the  encroachments  of  clerical 
ambition ;  secures  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  provides  for 
the  exercise  of  pure  and  wholesome  discipline  in  the  most 
edifying  manner. 

I.  In   the   first  place,  we   reject  the  claim   of  Prelacy. 


46  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE 

Our  Episcopal  brethren  contend  that  in  the  Christian  Church 
there  are  three  orders  of  clergy, — Bishops,  Presbyters,  and 
Deacons ;  that  the  first  only  have  power  to  ordain,  and  the 
last  to  preach,  and  administer  the  sacrament  of  baptism  alone. 
We  maintain,  that  all  ministers  of  the  Gospel  who  are  em- 
powered to  administer  the  word  and  sacraments,  are  officially 
equal,  and  authorized  to  perform  the  highest  acts  of  ecclesias- 
tical power.  We  believe,  in  a  word,  that  there  is  but  one 
order  of  Gospel  ministers  authorized  in  the  New  Testament ; 
that  the  title  of  Bishop  was  constantly  applied  in  the  apostolic 
age,  and  for  a  considerable  time  afterwards,  to  the  ordinary 
pastors  of  particular  churches  ;  and  that  setting  up  a  superior 
under  this  title,  as  exclusively  possessed  of  the  power  of 
ordaining,  is  a  departure  from  the  primitive  model ;  a  usurpa- 
tion for  which  there  is  not  the  smallest  warrant  in  the  word 
of  God. 

Our  Episcopal  brethren,  indeed,  freely  acknowledge,  that 
the  title  of  "  Bishop"  is  never  employed  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  a  single  instance,  to  designate  that  class  of  officers 
to  which  they  now  exclusively  apply  it.  They,  with  one 
voice,  grant,  that  all  that  we  read  in  the  apostolical  writings 
concerning  Bishops,  is  to  be  regarded  as  pertaining  to  Pres- 
byters, or  the  ordinary  pastors  of  churches  ;  in  other  words, 
to  what  they  call  the  "  second  grade"  of  ministers.  They 
allege,  however,  that  the  Apostles  occupied  a  place  of  eccle- 
siastical pre-eminence  in  the  primitive  Church  ;  that  they 
alone,  while  they  lived,  were  endowed  with  the  power  of  or- 
dination; that,  as  they  deceased,  their  pre-eminence  was 
transmitted  to  certain  successors  ;  that  to  these  successors  of 
the  Apostles,  the  title  of  Bishop,  which  had  before,  while  the 
Apostles  lived,  been  given  to  Presbyters,  began  to  be  appro- 
priated ;  and  that  ever  since  the  apostolic  age,  this  title  has 
been  confined  to  Prelates  ;*  to  those  who  succeeded  to  the 
apostolic  pre-eminence,  and  who,  like  the  Apostles,  exclusive- 
ly possess  the  power  of  ordination. 

But,  to  no  part  of  this  claim  does  the  New  Testament  af- 
ford the  least  countenance.  It  is  manifest,  that  ordination  was 
not  confined  to  the  Apostles,  officially,  and  technically  so 
called ;  for  nothing  can  be  plainer,  than  that  Barnabas,  Timo- 
thy, and  Titus,  who  were  not  Apostles  in  the  appropriated 
sense,  were  invested  with  the  ordaining  power,  and  actually 
and  abundantly  exercised  it.  It  is  equally  manifest,  that 
when  the  Apostles  ceased  from  the  Church,  they  left  no  suc- 

*  See  Bishop  Onderdonk's  "  Episcopacy  tested  by  Scripture."  p.  12. 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  47 

cessors,  in  that  peculiar  and  pre-eminent  office,  which  they 
filled  during  their  lives.  "  The  apostolical  office,"  says  Dr. 
Barrow,  an  eminent  Episcopal  divine, — "  The  apostolical  of- 
fice, as  such,  was  personal  and  temporary;  and,  therefore, 
according  to  its  nature  and  design,  not  successive,  nor  commu- 
nicable to  others,  in  perpetual  descendence  from  them.  It 
was,  as  such,  in  all  respects  extraordinary,  conferred  in  a 
special  manner,  designed  for  special  purposes,  discharged  by 
special  aids,  endowed  with  special  privileges,  as  was  needful 
for  the  propagation  of  Christianity,  and  founding  of  churches. 
To  that  office,  it  was  requisite  that  the  person  should  have 
an  immediate  designation  and  commission  from  God ;  thai 
he  should  be  endowed  with  miraculous  gifts  and  graces ; 
that  he  should  be  able,  according  to  his  discretion,  to  impart 
spiritual  gifts ;  and  that  he  should  govern  in  an  absolute 
manner,  as  being  guided  by  infallible  assistance,  to  which  he 
might  appeal.  Now  such  an  office,  consisting  of  so  many 
extraordinary  privileges,  and  miraculous  powers,  which  were 
requisite  for  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  was  not  designed 
to  continue  by  derivation,  for  it  contained  in  it  divers  things, 
which  apparently  were  not  communicated,  and  which  no 
man,  without  gross  imposture  and  hypocrisy,  could  challenge 
to  himself.* 

Such  is  the  judgment  of  this  learned  and  able  Prelatist, 
concerning  the  foundation  of  the  whole  argument  before  us. 
There  is  not  the  semblance  of  support,  then,  to  be  found  in 
Scripture  for  the  alleged  transmission  of  the  pre-eminent  and 
peculiar  powers  of  the  Apostles  to  a  set  of  ecclesiastical  suc- 
cessors. As  men  endowed  with  the  gifts  of  miracles  and 
inspiration,  who  were,  prior  to  the  completion  of  the  New 
Testament  canon,  constituted  the  infallible  guides  of  the 
Church  :  they  had  no  successors  ;  nor  can  the  remotest  hint 
be  found  in  Scripture,  that  they  had,  or  were  ever  intended 
to  have,  any  such  successors.  But  as  ministers  of  Christ, 
empowered  to  go  forth  preaching  the  Gospel  and  administer- 
ing Christian  sacraments,  they  had  successors,  and  these  suc- 
cessors were,  manifestly,  all  those  who  were  empowered  to 
preach  the  Gospel,  and  administer  the  sacramental  seals  of 
discipleship :  for,  in  the  final  commission  which  the  Saviour 
gave  to  the  Apostles,  and  which  must  be  considered  as  em- 
bracing their  final  and  highest  functions,  they  are  sent  forth 
to  disciple  all  nations,  and  to  baptize  them  "  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost;"  and  i^ 

*  Pope's  Supremacy,  p.  79 . 


48  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE 

was  in  immediate  connexion  with  the  command  to  discharge 
these  ordinary  duties,  that  the  promise  which  is  considered 
as  pointing  to  the  ministerial  succession,  was  given : — "  Lo, 
I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  If 
the  friends  of  Prelacy  could  produce  even  the  semblance  of 
testimony  from  Scripture,  that  the  ordaining  power  is  some- 
thing more  sacred  and  elevated  than  that  of  dispensing  the 
Gospel,  and  administering  sacraments  ;  if  they  could  produce 
the  least  hint  from  the  New  Testament,  that  the  powers  pos- 
sessed by  the  Apostles  were  afterwards  divided,  and  that  one 
class  of  ministers  succeeded  them  in  certain  pre-eminent 
powers,  not  mentioned  in  their  final  commission,  while 
another  class  succeeded  them  only  in  respect  to  lower  and 
more  ordinary  functions  ;  their  cause  would  rest  on  some 
plausible  ground;  but  there  is  not  a  syllable  in  Scripture 
which  gives  the  most  distant  intimation  of  either  of  these  al- 
leged facts.  It  is  not  so  much  as  pretended,  that  a  passage 
is  to  be  found,  which  gives  a  hint  of  this  kind.  Accordingly, 
when  we  ask  the  advocates  of  Episcopacy  whence  they  de- 
rive their  favourite  doctrine,  that  diocesan  Bishops  succeed 
the  Aposdes  in  the  appropriate  powers  and  pre-eminence  of 
their  apostolical  character,  they  refer  us  to  no  passages  of 
Scripture,  asserting  or  even  hinting  it ;  but  to  some  equivocal 
suggestions  and  allusions  of  several  Fathers,  who  wrote  within 
the  first  four  or  five  hundred  years  after  Christ.  The  writer 
most  frequently  quoted  by  our  Episcopal  brethren  for  this 
purpose,  is  Theodoret,  who  flourished  about  the  middle  of 
the  fifth  century,  and  who  speaks  thus  :  "  The  same  persons 
were  anciently  called  Bishops  and  Presbyters ;  and  those 
whom  we  now  call  Bishops,  were  then  called  Apostles.  But 
in  process  of  time,  the  title  of  Apostle  was  appropriated  to 
those  who  were  called  Apostles  in  the  strict  sense,  and  the 
rest,  who  had  formerly  the  name  of  Apostles,  were  styled 
Bishops.  In  this  sense  Epaphroditus  is  called  the  Apostle  of 
the  Phihppians  ;  Titus  was  the  Apostle  of  the  Cretians,  and 
Timothy  of  Asia."  On  this  testimony,  several  remarks  may 
be  made:  1.  It  is  not  the  testimony  of  Scripture,  but  the 
dream  of  a  writer  four  centuries  after  the  apostolic  age,  in 
whose  time  the  Church  had  become  very  corrupt,  and  in 
whose  works  much  superstition  and  error  are  found. 

2.  No  one  doubts  that  in  Theodore t's  time.  Prelacy  had 
obtained  a  complete  establishment,  and  that  he  alleges  princi- 
ples and  facts  in  relation  to  the  priesthood  in  his  day,  which 
none  but  Papists  are  prepared  to  sanction. 

3.  It  is  very  certain  that  the  Fathers  who  flourished  nearest 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  49 

to  the  apostolic  age,  generally  represent  Presbyters,  and  not 
Prelates,  as  the  successors  of  the  Apostles.  Ignatius,  in  par- 
ticular, who  was  contemporary  with  the  last  of  the  Apostles, 
expresses  himself  again  and  again  in  the  following  language  : 
"  The  Presbyters  succeed  in  the  place  of  the  bench  of  the 
Apostles  ;"  and  again,  "  in  like  manner,  let  all  reverence  the 
Presbyters  as  the  sanhedrim  of  God,  and  college  of  the  Apos- 
tles ;"  and  again,  "  Be  subject  to  your  Presbyters,  as  to  the 
Apostles  of  Jesus  Christ  our  hope."  And  once  more,  "  Fol- 
low the  Presbyters  as  the  Apostles."  Which  shall  we  believe, 
Ignatius  or  Theodoret  ?  Beyond  all  doubt,  neither  is  to  be 
trusted  in  relation  to  a  matter  which  receives  no  countenance 
from  Scripture.  It  is  notorious,  too,  that  Irenaeus,  a  Christian 
father,  who  flourished  toward  the  latter  part  of  the  second 
century,  repeatedly  speaks  of  Presbyters  as  being  the  succes- 
sors of  the  Apostles.  In  other  places  he  speaks  of  the  same 
persons  as  Bishops,  and  under  that  title  also  represents  them 
as  the  successors  of  the  Apostles.  And  this  he  does,  not  once 
only,  but  several  times,  as  if  his  object  were  to  show  that, 
according  to  the  representation  of  the  New  Testament,  Bishop 
and  Presbyter  were  the  same. 

4.  Augustine,  a  writer  earlier  than  Theodoret,  more  learned, 
and  of  higher  authority,  expressly  declares,  that  the  apostolical 
office  was  above  that  of  any  Bishop.  De  Baptis.  contra  Do- 
natis.  ii.  1. 

5.  And  after  all,  to  what  does  Theodoret's  statement 
amount  1  Why,  only  that  in  the  fifth  century,  such  claims 
and  such  language  as  he  presents,  were  common.  Who 
doubts  this  ?  But  does  he  say  that  the  New  Testament  au- 
thorizes any  such  statement  ?  He  does  not.  Nor,  if  he  had, 
could  we  possibly  believe  him  with  the  Bible  in  our  hands. 
The  truth  is,  no  such  fact  as  this  argument  supposes,  is  stated 
or  hinted  at  in  Scripture.  It  every  where  represents  the 
Apostles  as  extraordinary  officers,  who,  in  their  peculiar  qua- 
lifications and  authority,  had  no  successors  ;  but  who,  in  re- 
spect to  that  office  which  is  perpetual,  are  succeeded  by  all 
regularly  authorized  ministers  of  the  Gospel.  And  to  give 
any  other  view  of  the  subject,  is  an  imposition  on  popular 
credulity.  Accordingly,  this  whole  argument  for  the  supe- 
riority of  Bishops,  drawn  from  the  plea,  that  they  are  the  pe- 
culiar and  exclusive  successors  of  the  Apostles  in  their  offi- 
cial pre-eminence,  has  been  wholly  abandoned  by  a  numbei 
of  the  most  distinguished  divines  of  the  Church  of  England, 
as  invalid  and  untenable. 

The  next  argument  commonly  urged  by  our  Episcopal 


50  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE 

brethren  in  support  of  Prelacy  is,  that  Timothy  was  evidently, 
in  fact,  Bishop  of  Ephesus,  and  Titus  of  Crete  ;  and  that  this 
furnishes,  of  course,  a  plain  example  of  an  order  of  ministers 
superior  to  common  pastors.  This  alleged  fact  is  a  corner 
stone  of  the  Episcopal  fabric,  and  unless  it  can  be  supported, 
the  whole  edifice  must  fall  to  the  ground. 

But  for  this  alleged  Prelacy  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  there 
is  not  only  no  positive  proof,  but  there  is  not  even  a  shadow 
of  it,  in  the  whole  New  Testament.  There  is  no  evidence 
whatever,  that  either  of  them  ever  had  a  fixed  pastoral  charge 
at  Ephesus  or  Crete.  There  is  no  evidence  that  either  of 
them  ever  performed  the  work  of  ordination  alone.  One  of 
them,  while  at  Ephesus,  was  expressly  directed  to  "  do  the 
work  of  an  evangelist,"  and  there  is  not  the  slightest  intima- 
tion that  either  acted  in  any  higher  character.  There  is  no 
hint  that  they  performed  any  act,  to  which  any  regular  minis- 
ter of  the  Gospel  is  not  fully  competent.  In  short,  the  whole 
Episcopal  argument  drawn  from  the  charge  to  Timothy  and 
Titus,  is  destitute  of  the  semblance  of  proof  from  Scripture. 
All  the  premises  on  which  it  is  founded,  are  taken  for  granted 
without  evidence.  All  that  appears  to  have  been  done  by 
these  evangelists,  is  done  every  day  by  evangelists  authorized 
and  sent  forth  by  the  Presbyterian  Church  ;  and  no  reason  can 
be  assigned  for  ascribing  to  the  missionaries  to  Ephesus  and 
Crete  any  higher  character,  than  that  the  Episcopal  cause  de- 
mands it.  In  truth,  when  thrown  into  the  form  of  a  regular 
syllogism,  its  amount  is  neither  more  nor  less  than  the  fol- 
lowing :  "  None  but  diocesan  Bishops  can  ordain  ministers, 
and  '  set  in  order'  churches ;  but  Timothy  and  Titus,  dis- 
charged these  offices;  therefore,  Timothy  and  Titus  were 
diocesan  Bishops."  But  is  not  the  very  thing  to  be  proved, 
viz :  that  diocesan  Bishops  alone  can  ordain,  &c.,  here  taken 
for  granted?  Can  there  be  a  more  gross  begging  of  the 
whole  question  than  this  argument  exemplifies  ? 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  inform  any  intelligent  reader  ot 
the  Bible,  that  the  postscripts,  at  the  close  of  the  second 
epistle  to  Timothy,  and  of  the  epistle  to  Titus,  and  which 
speaks  of  the  former  as  "  the  first  Bishop  of  Ephesus,"  and 
the  latter  as  "  the  first  Bishop  of  Crete,"  are  of  no  authority. 
1:  is  acknowledged  by  aU  learned  men,  that  they  make  no 
part  of  the  sacred  text.  They  were,  no  doubt,  interpolated 
by  officious  transcribers,  more  than  four  hundred  years  after 
the  date  of  the  epistles.  They  are  not  found  at  all  in  the  most 
authentic  copies  of  the  original.  They  are  not  the  same  in 
the  copies  in  which  they  are  found.     They  were  excluded 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  51 

irom  all  the  earliest  English  translations.  And  for  a  lor 5 
lime  after  their  introduction,  they  were  printed  in  a  differ*-jit 
type  from  the  received  text,  to  indicate  that  they  formed  no 
part  of  the  authentic  Scriptures.  But  when  our  present  trans- 
lation of  the  Bible,  in  the  reign  of  James  I.,  was  executed,  as 
the  translators  were  all  Episcopalians,  they,  very  improperly, 
suffered  these  postscripts  to  occupy  the  place  in  which  we 
now,  find  them,  without  any  mark  to  distinguish  them  from 
the  authorized  text. 

Such  is  the  amount  of  the  argument  drawn  from  the  alleged 
Episcopal  character  of  Timothy  and  Titus.  It  finds  no  coun- 
tenance whatever  in  the  New  Testament.  Every  fact  which 
is  stated  in  the  inspired  history  concerning  those  pious  evan- 
gelists, is  not  only  perfectly  reconcileable  with  the  Presbyte- 
rian doctrine,  but  agrees  far  better  with  it  than  with  the  Epis- 
copal hypothesis.  Accordingly,  the  eminent  Episcopal  di- 
vine, Dr.  Whitby,  with  all  his  zeal  for  Prelacy,  speaks  in  his 
commentary  in  the  following  language  :  "  The  great  contro- 
versy concerning  this,  and  the  epistles  to  Timothy  is,  whether 
Timothy  and  Titus  were  indeed  made  Bishops,  the  one  of 
Ephesus,  and  the  proconsular  Asia  ;  the  other  of  Crete. 
Now,  of  this  matter,  I  confess  /  can  find  nothing  in  any 
writer  of  the  first  three  centuries,  nor  any  intimation  that 
they  bore  that  name.''''  And  afterwards  he  adds,  concerning 
the  whole  argument ;  "  I  confess  that  these  two  instances, 
absolutely  taken,  afford  us  no  convincing  arguments  in  favour 
of  a  settled  diocesan  Episcopacy,  because  there  is  nothing 
which  proves  they  did,  or  were  to  exercise  these  acts  of  go- 
vernment rather  as  Bishops  than  evangelists."  It  is  true, 
this  learned  writer,  while  he  acknowledges  that  no  evidence 
in  favour  of  the  Episcopal  character  of  these  missionaries,  is 
to  be  found  within  the  first  three  centuries,  expresses  an 
opinion,  that  there  is  testimony  enough  to  establish  it  in 
writers  of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  This,  however,  is 
not  Scriptural  testimony  ;  and  what  is  not  found  in  the  Bible, 
is  surely  not  binding  on  the  Church.  Besides  ;  this  testi- 
mony of  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  when  impartially 
examined,  and  compared  with  other  contemporaneous  testi- 
mony, will  be  found  perfectly  worthless,  and,  of  course, 
unavailing  to  the  cause  in  support  of  which  it  is  adduced, 
because  it  is  not  consistent  either  with  itself,  or  with  the  New 
Testament. 

Another  argument  from  Scripture,  commonly  urged  by  oui 
Episcopal  brethren,  is  derived  from  the  "  Angels"  addressed 
in  the  Epistles  to  the  Seven  Churches  of  the  Lesser  Asia. 
5 


52  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE 

"  In  each  of  those  Churches,"  say  the  advocates  of  Prelacy, 
"  an  individual  is  addressed  under  the  title  of  '  Angel,'  which 
is  a  very  strong  argument  against  ministerial  parity,  and  in 
favour  of  Episcopacy."  But  this  argument  is  just  as  powerless 
}is  any  of  the  preceding,  or  rather,  it  is  destitute  even  of  their 
degree  of  plausibility.  The  term  "Angel"  signifies  messenger. 
As  an  ecclesiastical  title,  it  is  derived  from  the  Old  Testament. 
In  every  Jewish  Synagogue,  or  worshipping  congregation, 
there  was  an  "Angel  of  the  Church,"  whose  duty  it  was  to 
preside  and  take  the  lead  in  public  worship.  This  title  was 
evidently  transferred  from  the  Synagogue  to  the  Christian 
Church.  And  if  we  suppose  each  of  these  "Angels"  to  be 
the  ordinary  pastor  of  a  single  church  or  congregation,  it  will 
perfectly  accord  with  every  representation  concerning  them 
found  in  the  epistles  in  question.  But  he  who  looks  carefully 
into  the  addresses  to  the  several  churches  contained  in  these 
epistles,  will  find  much  reason  to  doubt  whether  individual 
ministers  are  at  all  designated  by  the  title  of  "  Angel."  Some 
have  supposed  that  collective  bodies  of  pastors  were  intended. 
Of  this  opinion  a  number  of  the  most  eminent  Episcopal 
writers  have  been  the  advocates.  There  is  absolutely  not  a 
shadow  of  proof  that  prelates  or  any  thing  like  them,  are  re- 
ferred to.  Some  of  the  most  learned  and  zealous  advocates 
of  prelacy  have  acknowledged  this  ;  and  the  whole  argument 
really  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  a  mere  gratuitous  as- 
sumption of  the  point  to  be  proved. 

One  more  argument  may  be  briefly  adverted  to,  which  our 
Episcopal  brethren  sometimes  urge  in  support  of  their  cause. 
They  say  that  the  Apostle  James  was  evidently  the  Bishop 
of  Jerusalem.  This  they  attempt  to  prove  by  telling  us  that 
he  spoke  last,  and  gave  a  very  pointed  sentence,  or  opinion,  in 
the  Synod  of  Jerusalem ;  that  Peter,  after  his  release  from 
prison,  said  to  certain  persons,  go  show  these  things  unto 
James  and  to  the  brethren ;  and  that  when  Paul  visited  Jeru- 
salem, it  is  said  concerning  him — and  the  day  foUowmg,  Paul 
went  in  with  us  unto  James,  and  all  the  Elders  were  present. 
On  these,  and  other  occasions,  the  advocates  of  Episcopal 
claims  tell  us,  James  was  spoken  of  as  a  distinguished  man, 
and  treated  with  marked  respect ;  and  from  this  circumstance 
it  is  inferred  that  he  was  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem. 

This  argument,  when  stripped  of  all  its  decorations,  stands 
thus  :  "  James  was  the  last  speaker,  and  gave  a  decisive  opi- 
nion in  an  ecclesiastical  assembly;  therefore,  he  was  superior 
to  all  others  present,  and,  of  course,  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem ! 
Peter  requested  an  account  of  his  release  from  prison  to  be 


PRE6BYTERIAN  CHURCH.  53 

sent  to  James ;  therefore,  James  was  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem ! 
Paul  and  his  company  went  to  the  house  of  James  in  J  erusa- 
lem,  and  there  found  the  Elders  convened  ;  therefore,  James 
was  the  ecclesiastical  governor  of  that  city !"  This  is  absolutely 
the  whole  of  the  scriptural  argument  drawn  from  the  character 
of  James  !  Surely,  a  more  singular  instance  of  the  gratuitous 
assumption  of  what  ought  to  be  proved,  was  never  exhibited! 

So  utterly  groundless,  then,  do  we  find  the  claim  of  our 
Episcopal  brethren,  when  brought  to  the  test  of  Scripture. 
Their  claim,  it  will  be  observed,  is  positive  and  explicit.  It 
is,  that  the  New  Testament  holds  forth,  as  existing  in  the 
Apostolic  Church,  and  intended  to  be  perpetual,  an  order  of 
men  superior  to  ministers  of  the  word  and  sacraments  ;  that 
this  order  is  alone  empowered  to  ordain ;  and,  of  course,  that 
without  ordination  by  this  order  of  men,  there  can  be  no  minis- 
try, no  Church,  no  valid  ordinances,  no  "  covenanted  mercy," 
to  any  of  the  children  of  men.  In  short,  they  would  persuade 
us,  not  only  that  the  New  Testament  bears  them  out  in  main- 
taining the  actual  existence  of  such  an  order  in  the  apostolic 
Church  ;  but  also  that  it  warrants  them  in  contending  for  it  as 
perpetually  and  indispensably  necessary.  The  burden  of 
proof  lies  on  them.  They  have  not  proved  and  cannot  prove 
either.  That  the  power  of  ordaining  was  not  confined  to  the 
Apostles  while  they  lived,  is  manifest  to  all  who  read  the  Bible 
without  prejudice.  That  the  extraordinary  powers  of  the 
Apostles  were  to  be  transmitted  to  successors,  can  no  more  be 
proved  from  the  word  of  God,  than  that  inspiration  and  miracles 
are  still  continued,  and  transmitted  from  man  to  man  in  the 
Church.  That  Timothy  and  Titus  were  prelates,  because  they 
were  appointed  to  "  ordain  Elders,"  and  "  set  in  order  the 
things  that  were  wanting"  in  Ephesus  and  Crete,  when  it  is 
utterly  uncertain  whether  either  of  them  performed  a  single 
ordination  alone — is  no  more  proved,  or  even  probable,  than 
that  modern  Presbyterian  missionaries  to  frontier  settlements 
are  prelates,  because  they  are  commissioned  to  perform  simi- 
lar work.  And  so  of  all  the  other  alleged  sources  of  proof 
from  Scripture.  They  are  just  as  destitute  of  force,  and  just 
as  delusive  as  the  Popish  doctrine,  that  the  primacy  of  St. 
Peter,  and  the  transmission  of  that  primacy  to  the  Bishops  ot 
Rome,  may  be  proved  from  the  word  of  God. 

Some  of  the  most  learned  advocates  of  Episcopacy,  how- 
ever, while  they  have  freely  confessed  that  their  favourite  sys- 
tem could  not  be  established  from  Scripture,  have  confidently 
asserted,  that  it  is  abundantly  and  unquestionably  supported  by 


54  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE 

the  testimony  of  the  Fathers.     Into  this  field  it  is  not  judgevl 
proper  here  to  enter,  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  The  Bible  contains  the  religion  of  Protestants.  It  is 
the  only  infallible,  and  the  sufiicient  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
Even  if  Prelacy  were  found  unequivocally  represented  as  ex- 
isting, by  the  Fathers,  in  fifty  years  after  the  last  Apostle,  yet 
if  it  be  not  found  in  the  Bible,  as  it  assuredly  is  not,  such  tes- 
timony would  by  no  means  establish  its  apostolic  appoint- 
ment. It  would  only  prove  that  the  Church  ^vas  very  early 
corrupted.  We  know,  indeed,  that  no  such  testimony  exists  ; 
but  if  it  did,  as  long  as  we  have  the  Bible,  we  ought  to  reject  it. 

2.  We  know  that  human  inventions,  and  various  forms  of 
corruption  did  in  fact  very  early  obtain  currency  in  the  Chris- 
tian Church  ;  and  that  several  practices,  quite  as  likely  to  be 
opposed  as  the  encroachments  of  Prelacy,  were  introduced 
and  established  within  the  first  three  hundred  years. 

3.  This  is  a  kind  of  testimony  very  difiicult  to  be  brought 
within  a  narrow  compass.  For,  while  some  detached  pas- 
sages from  the  early  Fathers  have  the  appearance  at  first 
view  of  favouring  Prelacy;  yet,  when  carefully  examined, 
and  compared  with  other  passages  from  the  same  Fathers, 
and  others  of  equal  credibility — their  testimony  will  be  found 
utterly  unfavourable  to  Prelatical  claims.  He  who  reads  what 
the  learned  Jerome,  in  the  fourth  century,  declares  concern- 
ing Prelacy,  as  having  no  foundation  in  Divine  appointment, 
and  as  gradually  brought  in  by  human  ambition,  will  begin  to 
see  that  the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  on  this  subject  is  very 
different  from  what  sanguine  and  ardent  Prelatists  are  accus- 
tomed to  represent  it.  So  the  testimony  of  Jerome  was  under- 
stood by  bishop  Jewel,  by  bishop  Morton,  by  archbishop 
Whitgift,  by  bishop  Bilson,  by  bishop  Stillmgfleet,  and  by  a 
number  of  other  divines  as  learned  and  able,  as  ever  adorned 
the  Church  of  England.  And  with  respect  to  the  testimony 
of  Ignatius,  early  in  the  second  century,  who  is  commonly  re- 
garded and  resorted  to  as  the  sheet-anchor  of  the  Episcopal 
claim ;  we  could  scarcely  wish  for  a  more  distinct  and  graphic 
description  of  Presbyterianism  than  his  Epistles  represent  as 
existing  in  all  the  churches  which  he  addressed.  Ignatius 
speaks  expressly  of  a  Bishop,  Elders,  and  Deacons  existing 
in  every  worshipping  assembly  which  he  addressed.  Is  this 
the  language  of  Prelacy?  So  far  from  it,  nothing  can  be 
plainer  than  that  this  language  can  be  reconciled  with  the 
Presbyterian  system  alone.  Presbyterians  are  the  only  de- 
nomination who  have,  in  every  worshipping  assembly,  a 
Bishop,  Presbyters,  or  Elders,  and  Deacons. 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  55 

But  it  cannot  be  too  often  repeated,  or  too  constantly  kept 
in  view,  that  whatever  the  Fathe.^  :uay  say  on  this  subject,  is 
not  to  decide  respecting  it.  If  Episcopacy,  when  brought  to 
the  test  of  Scripture,  cannot  stand,  we  may  very  willingly  leave 
its  support  from  other  sources  to  those  who  may  feel  inclined 
to  "receive  for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men."  This 
principle  formed  one  of  the  great  dividing  lines  between  our 
lathers,  the  Puritans  of  England,  and  the  Prelates  and  others 
by  whom  the  Reformed  Church  was  organized  in  that  land. 
The  Puritans  contended  that  the  Bible  was  the  only  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  practice  ;  that  it  ought  to  be  regarded  as  the 
standard  of  church  government  and  discipline  as  well  as  of 
doctrine ;  and  that  the  Church,  as  it  stood  in  the  days  of  the 
Apostles,  is  the  proper  model  for  our  imitation.  But  the 
bishops  and  the  court  clergy  openly  maintained  that  the 
Scriptures  were  not  to  be  considered  as  the  only  standard  of 
church  government  and  discipline ;  that  the  Fathers  and  the 
early  Councils  were  to  be  united  with  them  as  the  rule  ;  that 
the  Saviour  and  his  Apostles  left  the  whole  matter  of  church 
order  to  be  accommodated  to  the  discretion  of  the  civil  magis- 
trate, and  to  the  form  of  polity  in  the  state  ;  and  that  the  form 
Df  church  government  adopted  in  the  third  and  fourth  centu- 
ries, and  especially  in  the  civil  establishment  under  Constan- 
tine,  was  really  to  be  preferred  to  that  which  existed  in  the 
days  of  the  Apostle?.,  which  they  considered  as  peculiarly  fitted 
to  the  infant  state  of  the  Church,  while  depressed  by  persecu- 
tion. And  upon  this  plan  it  is  notorious  that  the  men,  who 
<ook  the  lead  in  reforming  and  organizing  the  Church  of  Eng- 
and  avowedly  proceeded. 

But  we  can  not  only  prove  a  negative ;  that  is,  we  can  not 
only  establish  that  there  is  no  evidence  in  favour  of  diocesan 
Episcopacy  to  be  found  in  Scripture  ;  but  we  can  go  further, 
and  show  that  the  testimony  in  favour  of  ministerial  parity 
found  in  the  New  Testament,  is  clear  and  strong.  Nothing 
is  plainer  than  that  our  blessed  Lord  severely  rebuked,  and 
explicitly  condemned  all  contests  among  his  ministering  ser- 
vants about  rank  and  pre-eminence.  It  is  acknowledged,  by 
the  great  mass  of  learned  and  pious  men,  of  all  Protestant  de- 
nominations, that  it  is  plain,  from  the  apostolical  writings,  that 
the  ecclesiastical  order  of  the  Synagogue  was  transferred  by 
inspired  men  to  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  evident,  on  the 
slightest  inspection  of  the  New  Testament  history,  that  the" 
names  and  functions  of  the  church  officers  appointed,  l^y  the 
Apostles,  were  derived,  not  from  the  Temple,  but  from  tlie 
Synagogue.  It  is  explicitly  granted  by  our  Episcopal  breth- 
5* 


56  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE 

ren  themselves,  that  in  the  New  Testament  the  titles,  Bishop 
and  Presbyter  were  used  interchangeably  to  designate  the  same 
office,  and  that  the  names  were  then  common.  Nothing  is 
plainer  than  that  the  Elders  of  the  Church  of  Ephesus,  are 
spoken  of  as  its  Bishops,  Acts  xx.,  and,  of  course,  that  there 
were  a  plurality  of  Bishops  in  the  same  Church,  which  is 
wholly  inconsistent  with  the  doctrine  of  Prelacy.  It  is  mani- 
fest, that  Timothy  received  his  designation  to  the  sacred  of- 
fice "  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  Presbytery.'''' 
We  find  that  such  men  as  Barnabas,  and  Simeon,  and  L\icius, 
and  Manaen,  none  of  whom,  it  is  evident  were  Prelates, — 
were  commanded  to  lay  their  hands  on  Paul,  and  one  of  their 
own  number,  and  "separate  them"  to  a  special  ministry,  on 
which  they  were  about  to  depart ;  "  and  when  they  had  fasted 
and  prayed,  they  laid  their  hands  on  them  and  sent  them 
away."  But  it  is  contrary  to  all  order,  human  and  divine,  foi 
an  official  inferior,  authoritatively  to  bless,  and  by  imposition 
of  hands,  to  send  forth  an  official  superior.  And,  finally,  ii 
is  evident,  that  the  mere  silence  of  Scripture,  as  to  the  claim 
of  our  Episcopal  brethren,  affiDrds  positive  and  conclusive 
proof  that  it  cannot  be  well  founded.  The  advocates  of  Pre- 
lacy, especially  the  more  zealous  and  determined  of  their 
number,  make  their  claim  a  fundamental  one.  According  to 
them,  as  before  said,  there  can  be  no  covenanted  Church,  no 
valid  ministry  or  sacraments,  without  ordination  to  the  sacred 
office  by  Prelates.  Now,  can  it  be  believed,  that  a  matter  so 
important,  nay,  vital,  should  not  be  laid  down  in  Scripture  in 
explicit  terms,  and  with  incontrovertible  evidence  ?  Surely, 
if  the  claim  were  well  founded,  whatever  else  was  left  in 
doubt,the  prerogative  of  the  Bishop  might  be  expected  to  be 
set  forth  with  reiterated  and  unquestionable  evidence.  But 
our  Episcopal  brethren  themselves  acknowledge,  that  this  is 
not  the  case.  Their  scriptural  testimony  is,  in  no  one  in- 
stance, direct  and  explicit,  but  all  indirect,  and  remotely  in- 
ferentitd.  They  do  not  pretend  to  quote  a  single  passage 
of  Scripture  which  declares,  in  so  many  words,  or  any  thing 
like  it,  in  favour  of  their  claim ;  but  their  whole  reliance,  in 
regard  to  scriptural  testimony,  is  placed  on  facts,  and  deduc- 
tions from  those  facts,  which  many  of  the  most  learned  of 
their  own  denomination  pronounce  utterly  unavailing  for 
their  purpose.  Now,  can  any  rational  man  beheve,  that 
our  blessed  Lord  and  his  Apostles  could  possibly  have  re- 
garded the  doctrine  of  Prelacy  in  the  same  light,  and  laid 
equal  stress  upon  it  with  our  Episcopal  brethren,  and  yet 
have  left  the  whole  subject,  to  say  the  least,  in   so  >inex- 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  57 

plicit  and  dubious  a  posture  ?  He,  who  can  believe  this, 
is  prepared  to  believe  any  thing  that  his  prejudices  may 
dictate. 

In  conformity  with  the  foregoing  statements,  it  is  well 
known  that,  at  the  era  of  the  Reformation,  the  leaders  of  the 
Church  of  England  stood  alone  in  reforming  their  Church 
upon  Prelatical  principles.  Luther,  Melancthon,  Zuingle, 
Bucer,  and  Peter  Martyr,  as  well  as  Calvin  and  Knox,  as 
stated  in  a  preceding  chapter — all — all — scattered  throughout 
every  part  of  Europe,  without  concert,  interpreted  the  New 
Testament  as  plainly  teaching  the  doctrine  of  ministerial  pari- 
ty, and  regarded  every  kind  of  imparity  in  the  Gospel  minis- 
try as  the  result  of  human  contrivance,  and  not  of  Divine  ap- 
pointment. In  short,  in  every  part  of  Protestant  Christen- 
dom, out  of  England — however  the  leaders  of  the  Reformation 
differed,  and  differed  sometimes  with  ardour  on  other  subjects, 
here  they,  with  scarcely  a  single  exception,  were  aU  agreed, 
that,  in  the  i^postles'  days.  Bishop  and  Presbyter  were  the 
same,  in  fact  as  well  as  in  name ;  and  that,  even  when  it  was 
thought  proper  to  allow  to  any  ministers  a  degree  of  pre-emi 
nence,  it  was  to  be  defended  on  the  ground  of  human  prudence 
alone.  How  shall  Ave  account  for  this  fact,  but  by  supposing 
that  the  plain  and  obvious  constmction  of  the  word  of  God  on 
this  subject,  is  favourable  to  Presbyterian  parity,  and  un- 
friendly to  Prelatical  claims  ? 

But  while  our  Episcopal  brethren  depart  from  the  primitive 
and  apostolic  model  in  regard  to  Bishops,  so  they  equally  de- 
part from  that  model  in  respect  to  the  Deacon's  office.  They 
contend  that  Deacons  are  one  of  the  orders  of  clergy,  and  are 
authorized,  by  Divine  appointment,  to  preach  and  baptize. 
Let  any  one  impartially  read  the  first  six  verses  of  the  sixth 
chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  then  say  whether  there 
is  the  smallest  warrant  for  this  opinion.  The  Apostles  say  to 
the  people,  "  It  is  not  meet  that  we  should  leave  the  word  of 
God,  and  serve  tables.  Wherefore,  look  ye  out  among  you  seven 
men  of  honest  report,  whom  we  may  appoint  over  this  busi- 
ness ;  but  we  will  give  ourselves  continually  to  prayer  and  to  the 
ministry  of  the  word."  Can  it  be  supposed,  in  direct  opposition 
to  this  v/hole  statement,  that  these  very  Deacons  were  appoint- 
ed, after  all,  not  to  take  care  of  the  poor,  but  to  labour  in  "the 
ministry  of  the  word  ?"  This  were  an  inconsistency,  nay,  an 
absurdity  so  glaring,  that  the  only  wonder  is,  how  any  one  can 
possibly  adopt  it  after  reading  the  inspired  statement.  The 
circumstance  of  Philip,  sometime  after  liis  appointment  as 
Deacon,  being  ^ound  prtaching  and  baptizing  in  Samaria  and 


58  GOVERNiVIExNT  OF  THE 

Other  places,  does  not  afford  the  smallest  presumptive  evidence 
against  this  conclusion.  Are  not  cases  frequently  occurring  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  which  young  men,  after  serving 
a  year  or  tvi^o  as  Ruling  Elders  or  Deacons,  are  set  apart  as 
ministers  of  the  Gospel  ?  Soon  after  Philip's  appointment  to 
the  deaconship  in  Jerusalem,  the  members  of  the  Church  in 
that  city  were  chiefly  "  scattered  abroad  by  persecution."  He 
was,  of  course,  driven  from  his  residence.  Now,  the  proba- 
bility is,  that  about  this  time, — seeing  he  was  "  a  man  full  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  and  of  wisdom,"  and,  therefore,  eminently 
qualified  to  be  useful  in  preaching  the  Gospel,  he  received  a 
new  ordination  as  an  Evangelist,  and  in  this  character  went 
forth  to  preach  and  baptize.  He  is  expressly  called  an 
""  Evangelist,"  by  the  same  inspired  writer  who  gives  us  the 
account  just  recited  of  his  appointment  as  Deacon.  Acts  xxi. 
8.  Until  it  can  be  proved,  then,  that  he  preached  and  bap- 
tized as  a  Deacon,  and  not  as  an  Evangelist,  the  supposition  is 
utterly  improbable,  and  wholly  unworthy  of  credit. 

The  truth  is,  the  primitive  and  apostolical  office  of  Deacon 
was  to  take  care  of  the  poor  and  "  serve  tables."  By  little 
and  little,  several  centuries  after  the  apostolic  age,  the  occu- 
pants of  this  office  usurped  the  functions  of  a  higher  one ; 
which  usurpation  was  afterwards  confirmed  by  ecclesiastical 
custom.  So  a  number  of  the  most  respectable  of  the  early 
Fathers  clearly  understood  the  matter.  Thus  Origen,  in  his 
commentary  on  the  21st  chapter  of  Matthew,  speaking  of  the 
corruption  which  prevailed  among  the  Deacons  in  his  day,  re- 
presents them — not  as  neglecting  to  preach  or  baptize — but  as 
"  neglecting  the  poor,  and  converting  to  their  own  use  the 
Church's  charitable  funds."  Again,  the  same  Father  tells  us, 
Tract  IG,  in  Matt.  "  The  Deacons  preside  over  the  money- 
tables  of  the  church."  And  again,  "  The  Deacons  were  ap- 
pointed to  preside  over  the  tables  of  the  church,  as  we  are 
taught  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles."  Ambrose,  in  the  fourth 
century,  in  his  commentary  on  Ephesians,  expressly  declares, 
that,  in  his  day,  "  the  Deacons  ordinarily  were  not  authorized 
to  preach."  Chrysostom,  in  the  same  century,  in  his  com- 
mentary on  Acts  vi.  Homil.  14,  tells  us,  that  in  his  time  "  there 
were  no  such  Deacons  in  the  Church  as  the  Apostles  ordain- 
ed," and,  in  the  same  connection,  gives  it  as  his  opinion,  that 
it  ought  to  have  been  then  as  it  was  in  the  Apostles'  days. 
Jerome,  in  his  famous  letter  to  Evagrius,  expressly  calls  the 
Deacon,  "  a  minister  of  tables  and  widows."  The  "Aposto- 
lical Constitutions,"  commonly  referred  to  the  fourth  or  fifth 
century,  contain  (book  H.  chapter  27,)  the  following  passage  • 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  59 

♦'  Let  the  Deacon  give  nothing  to  any  poor  man  without  the 
Bishop's  knowledge  and  consent."  And  in  the  sixth  general 
council  of  Constantinople,  Can.  16,  it  is  declared,  that  "  the 
Scriptural  Deacons  were  no  other  than  overseers  of  the  poor, 
and  that  such  was  the  opinion  of  the  ancient  Fathers." 

But  parity  among  her  ministers  is  not  the  only  feature 
which  distinguishes  the  government  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  Her  mode  of  conducting  discipline  in  each  church 
by  a  bench  of  Elders,  acting  as  the  representatives  of  the 
members  at  large  ;  and  by  courts  of  review  and  control,  ad- 
mitting of  appeals,  where  parties  feel  aggrieved,  and  binding 
all  the  particular  churches  together  as  one  body,  walking  by 
the  same  rules  of  truth  and  order,  and  subject  to  the  same  uni- 
form constitutional  authority,  are  among  her  peculiar  advan- 
tages. In  regard  to  both  these  points,  Presbyterians  differ 
from  Independents  and  Congregationalists,  as  well  as  from 
Episcopalians,  and,  indeed,  from  most  other  denominations 
of  Christians.     To  these,  our  attention  will  next  be  directed. 

Independents  and  Congregationalists  commit  the  whole  go- 
vernment and  discipline  of  their  churches  immediately  to  the 
body  of  the  communicants.  In  some  of  their  churches  all  the 
communicants,  male  and  female,  have  an  equal  vote ;  in 
others,  the  males  only  take  a  part  in  discipline.  In  the  esti- 
mation of  Presbyterians  this  mode  of  conducting  ecclesiastical 
discipHne  is  liable  to  most  serious  objections.  They  consider 
it  as  wholly  unsupported  by  Scripture  ;  as  "  setting  those  to 
judge,  in  many  cases,  who  are  least  esteemed  in  the  church ;" 
as  extremely  unfavourable  to  the  calm  and  wise  administra- 
tion of  justice ;  nay,  as,  of  all  the  forms  of  ecclesiastical 
discipline,  most  exposed  to  the  sway  of  ignorance,  prejudice, 
passion,  and  artful  intrigue  :  that,  under  the  guise  of  liberty, 
it  often  leads  to  the  most  grievous  tyranny;  and  is  adapted  to 
exert  an  injurious  influence  on  the  characters  both  of  the  pas- 
tor and  the  people. 

.  In  the  Presbyterian  Church,  the  government  and  discipline 
in  each  congregation  is  committed  to  a  bench  of  Elders,  con- 
sisting of  eight  or  ten  of  the  most  pious,  enlightened,  wise, 
prudent,  and  grave  members  of  the  church.  They  constitute, 
with  the  pastor  at  their  head,  a  judicial  body,  who  maintam 
an  official  inspection  over  the  members  of  the  church,  and 
deliberately  sit  in  judgment  on  all  those  delicate,  and  yet  mo- 
mentous cases  which  are  connected  with  receiving,  admon- 
ishing, rebuking,  suspending,  excommunicating,  and  dismiss- 
ing the  members  of  the  flock  committed  to  their  care.     Our 


60  GOVERNMENT  OF   THE 

reasons  foi  conducting  in  this  manner  the  government  and 
discipUne  of  the  Church,  are  the  following: 

1.  It  is  certain,  that  in  the  system  of  the  Jewish  Syna- 
gogue, according  to  the  model  of  which  the  Christian  Church 
was  undoubtedly  organized,  the  whole  government  and  disci- 
pline was  conducted  by  a  bench  of  Elders,  and  not  by  the 
body  of  the  people. 

2.  It  is  manifest  that  government  and  discipline  were  so 
conducted  in  the  Apostolic  Church.  We  read  that,  in  every 
church  under  the  direction  of  the  Apostles,  a  plurality  ot 
Elders  were  ordained ;  and  we  find  a  class  of  Elders  distinctly 
spoken  of,  who  "  ruled  well,"  but  did  not  "labour  in  the 
word  and  doctrine,"  1  Tim.  v.  17. 

3.  We  find  tliis  class  of  Elders,  as  bearing  rule  in  each 
Church,  very  distinctly  and  frequently  alluded  to  in  several 
of  the  earliest  Christian  Fathers,  and  by  none  more  clearly 
than  by  Ignatius,  the  pious  pastor  of  Antioch.* 

4.  The  pious  witnesses  of  the  truth,  who  kept  alive  the 
true  doctrine  and  order  of  the  Church  during  the  dark  ages, 
more  especially  the  Waldenses  and  the  Bohemian  brethren, 
uniformly  governed  their  churches  by  means  of  Ruling,  as 
well  as  Teaching  Elders,  as  we  have  before  seen. 

5.  All  the  leading  Reformers  on  the  continent  of  Europe, 
with  scarcely  an  exception,  though  separated  from  each  other 
by  different  names,  and  strong  prejudices,  agreed,  without 
concert,  in  teaching  the  Divine  authority  of  Ruling  Elders, 
and  in  proof  of  it,  referred  to  the  same  Scriptures  which  we 
are  accustomed  to  cite  for  establishing  the  same  thing.  The 
Reformers  in  England  stood  alone,  in  excluding  this  class  ol 
officers  from  their  Church ;  and  even  some  of  their  number, 
among  the  rest,  Archbishop  Whitgift,  as  we  have  seen,  ac- 
knowledged that  there  were  such  officers  in  the  primitive 
Church  ;  but  that,  in  the  then  existing  circumstances,  it  was 
not  necessary  or  expedient  to  retain  them. 

6.  Such  officers  are  indispensably  necessary  to  the  mainte- 
nance of  sound  and  edifying  discipline.  Without  them,  dis- 
cipline will  either  be  wholly  neglected,  or  carried  on  with 

*  This  is  explicitly  acknowledged  by  a  number  of  learned  Episcopa- 
lians. Among  the  rest,  Archbishop  Whitgift  expresses  himself  thus : — 
"  I  know  that  in  the  primitive  Church,  they  had  in  every  church  certain 
seniors,  to  whom  the  government  of  the  congregation  was  committed; 
but  that  was  before  there  was  any  Christian  prince  or  magistrate  that 
openly  professed  the  Gospel,  and  before  there  was  any  Church  by  pub- 
lic authority  established."     Defence  against  Cartwright,  p.  638.  651. 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  61 

popular  noise  and  confusion;  or  conducted  by  the  pastor 
himself — thus  often  placing  him  in  circumstances  adapted  to 
make  him  either  a  tyrant,  partial  to  favourites,  or  a  political 
temporizer.  This  has  appeared  so  manifest  to  many  Inde- 
pendent and  Congregational  churches,  that  they  have  appoint- 
ed each  a  committee,  consisting  of  six  or  eight  of  their  most 
pious,  enlightened,  and  grave  members,  on  whom  was  de- 
volved the  whole  business  of  preparing,  arranging,  and  man- 
aging every  case  of  discipline,  so  that  the  body  of  the  com- 
municants might  have  nothing  more  to  do  tlian  to  give  their 
public  sanction,  by  a  vote,  to  what  had  been  virtually  done 
already  by  this  judicious  committee.  Could  there  be  a  more 
emphatic  acknowledgment  of  the  importance  and  necessity  oi 
this  class  of  officers  ? 

Finally :  Independents  and  Congregationalists  consider 
each  particular  church  as  entirely  independent  of  every  other 
church.  They  suppose  that  the  authority  exercised  by  the 
communicants  of  each  church,  is  supreme  and  final ;  and  that 
no  courts  of  review  and  control,  formed  by  the  representatives 
of  a  number  of  co-ordinate  churches,  and  invested  with  judi- 
cial power  over  the  whole,  ought  to  be  admitted.  Hence, 
when  any  member  of  an  Independent,  or  of  a  strictly  Con- 
gregational Church,  is  considered  by  himself,  or  by  his  friends, 
as  unjustly  cast  out,  or  as  in  any  way  injuriously  treated,  he 
has  no  remedy.  The  system  of  Independency  furnishes  no 
tribunal  to  which  he  can  appeal.  He  must  sit  down,  while 
he  lives,  under  the  oppressive  sentence,  unless  the  body,  ori- 
ginally pronouncing  it,  should  choose  to  remove  it.  The 
same  essential  defect  in  this  system  also,  appears  in  a  variety 
of  other  cases.  If  a  controversy  arise  between  a  pastor  and 
his  flock,  acting  on  strict  Congregational  principles ;  or  if  a 
contest  occur  between  two  Independent  or  Congregational 
churches  in  the  vicinity  of  each  other,  their  ecclesiastical 
constitution  furnishes  no  means  of  relief.  The  controversy 
may  be  subjected  to  the  decision  of  a  civil  court,  or  to  the 
judgment  of  selected  arbitrators,  just  as  may  be  done  when 
controversies  occur  among  secular  men.  But  their  system  of 
Church  order  affords  no  remedy.  Recourse  must  be  had  for 
relief  to  those  worldly  instrumentalities,  which  are  equally 
painful  to  the  pious  heart,  and  dishonourable  to  tlie  cause  of 
Christ. 

But,  for  all  these  difficulties,  Presbyterianism,  in  her  essen- 
tial constitution  furnishes  appropriate,  prompt,  and  for  the 
most  part,  adequate  relief.  Her  system  of  government  and 
discipline  contains,  within  its  own  bosom,  the  means  of  ad- 


62  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE 

justment  and  of  peace.  Every  species  of  controversy  is  com 
mitted  for  settlement,  to  a  grave  and  enlightened  judicial  body, 
made  up  of  the  representatives  of  all  the  churches  in  a  given 
district ;  a  body,  not  the  creature  of  a  day,  which,  when  its 
work  is  done,  ceases  to  exist ;  but  organized,  permanent,  and 
responsible;  whose  decisions  are  not  merely  advisory,  but 
authoritative ;  and  from  whose  sentences,  if  they  be  consider- 
e  iS  erroneous,  an  appeal  may  be  taken  to  a  higher  tribunal, 
enioracing  a  larger  portion  of  the  Church,  and  far  removed 
from  the  excitement  of  the  original  contest. 

We  find  the  principle  on  which  these  courts  of  review  and 
control  are  founded,  strikingly  exemplified  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament history,  and  our  practice  abundantly  warranted  by 
New  Testament  facts.  When  a  question  arose  at  Antioch, 
respecting  the  obligation  of  Jewisli  observances,  the  church 
in  that  place  did  not  attempt,  as  a  body  of  Independents 
would,  of  course,  have  done,  to  decide  the  matter  for  them- 
selves, leaving  the  other  churches  to  do  as  they  pleased. 
But  they  felt  that,  as  it  was  a  question  which  concerned  the 
whole  Christian  body,  so  a  general  and  authoritative  decision 
of  the  question,  binding  on  the  whole  body,  ought  to  be  made. 
They,  therefore,  empowered  special  delegates  to  carry  up  the 
question  to  "  the  Apostles  and  Elders  at  Jerusalem,"  to  be  by 
them  conclusively  settled.  There,  accordingly,  it  was  debated 
and  decided  upon  in  full  Synod ;  and  that  decision,  in  the 
form  of  "  decrees,"  (Soy^ua-fa)  that  is,  authoritative  adjudica- 
tions,— sent  down  to  all  the  churches  to  be  registered  and 
obeyed.  Can  any  one  conceive  of  a  more  perfect  example 
of  a  Presbyterian  Synod,  convened  as  a  judicial  body,  and 
pronouncing  a  decision,  not  as  a  mere  advisory  council,  but 
as  a  judicatory  of  Christ,  invested  with  judicial  power  to  de- 
clare the  path  of  duty  in  a  given  case ;  not  for  a  single  con- 
gregation merely,  but  for  the  whole  visible  Church? 

There  is  no  doubt,  indeed,  that  this  system  of  authoritative 
decision,  not  for  one  congregation  only,  but  for  a  number  of 
churches  belonging  to  the  same  visible  body,  may  be  weakly 
or  wickedly  managed.  Like  every  thing  in  the  hands  of 
man,  and  even  like  the  Gospel  itself,  it  may  be  unskilfully 
administered,  and  sometimes  even  perverted  into  means  of 
oppression  and  mischief.  So  may  the  most  perfect  system 
in  the  world,  civil  or  ecclesiastical.  So  may  Independency 
and  Congregationalism.  For,  as  an  eminent  Independent, 
(the  Rev.  Robert  Hall,)  remarked,  in  speaking  on  this  very 
subject,  "  While  power  is  dangerous  in  the  hands  of  a  few, 
wisdom  is  seldom  with  the  multitude."  The  fault,  however, 
is  not  in  the  system,  but  in  the  administration.    Here  is  a  form 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  63 

of  ecclesiastical  polity,  complete  in  all  its  parts ;  fitted  to  ob- 
viate every  difficulty;  not  indeed  armed  with  civil  power ;  not 
permitted  to  enforce  its  decisions  by  civil  penalties,  (in  which 
every  friend  of  genuine  Christianity  must  rejoice) ;  a  polity 
to  which  folly,  caprice,  or  rebellion  may  refuse  to  bow  ;  but, 
so  far  as  happy  adjustment,  and  moral  power  can  go,  better 
adapted  to  promote  the  union,  and  the  harmonious  counsel 
and  cooperation  of  all  the  churches  which  are  willing  to  avail 
themselves  of  its  advantages,  assuredly,  than  any  other  that 
Christendom  presents. 

Such  is  a  cursory  view  of  the  argument  in  favour  of  Pres- 
byterian church  government,  and  of  the  peculiar  advantages 
attending  that  form  of  ecclesiastical  order.  It  is  better  adapt 
ed  than  any  other  to  repress  clerical  ambition;  to  prevent 
clerical  encroachments  and  tyranny;  to  guard  against  the 
reign  of  popular  effervescence  and  violence ;  to  secure  the 
calm,  enlightened,  and  edifying  exercise  of  discipline ;  to 
maintain  the  religious  rights  of  the  people  against  all  sinister 
influence  ;  and  to  afford  relief  in  all  cases  in  which  a  single 
church,  or  an  inferior  judicatory,  may  have  passed  an  impro- 
per sentence,  from  either  mistake,  prejudice,  or  passion.  It 
establishes,  in  all  our  ecclesiastical  borders,  that  strict,  repub- 
lican, representative  system  of  government,  which  has  been 
"ever  found  to  lie  at  the  foundation  of  all  practical  freedom, 
both  political  and  religious  ;"  and  which,  under  God,  affords 
the  best  pledge  of  justice  and  stability  in  the  administration. 
It  affords  that  inspection  over  the  lives  and  conversation  of 
church  members,  which  is  ever  indispensably  needed,  and 
which  is  at  once  vigilant,  parental,  and  judicious ;  and  when 
faithfully  carried  into  execution,  is  better  fitted  than  any  other 
to  bring  the  whole  Church  to  act  together,  and  to  unite  all 
hearts  and  hands  in  Christian  beneficence.  And,  finally,  it 
is  better  fitted  than  any  other  to  maintain  a  wise,  impartial, 
and  faithful  inspection  over  the  lives  and  ministrations  of  the 
body  of  the  clergy.  How  much  better  is  a  venerable  Pres- 
bytery adapted  to  discharge  this  duty  to  edification,  than  a 
single  Bishop,  who,  to  say  nothing  of  other  faults,  may  in- 
dulge in  the  grossest  favouriteism  or  tyranny,  without  the 
possibility  of  adequate  control !  This  form  of  church  go- 
vernment cannot,  indeed,  of  itself,  infuse  life  and  activity  intc 
an  ecclesiastical  body;  but  where  vitality,  and  zeal,  and  re- 
sources exist,  there  is,  undoubtedly,  no  form  of  ecclesiastical 
organization  so  well  adapted  to  bind  together  a  body  consist- 
ing of  many  parts  ;  to  unite  counsels ;  to  invigorate  efforts  ; 
and  to  cause  a  large  and  extended  mass  of  professing  Chris- 
tians to  walk  by  the  same  rules ;  to  mind  the  same  tjjings :  to 


64  GOVERNMENT  OF  THE 

Speak  the  same  language ;  and  to  feel  that  they  are  in  fact,  as 
well  as  in  name,  one  body  in  Christ,  and  every  "one  mem- 
bers one  of  another." 

Our  Methodist  brethren  refuse  to  admit  any  representation 
from  the  laymen  of  their  churches,  into  their  Conferences,  to 
which  the  exercise  of  ecclesiastical  authority  is  committed : 
and  by  this  refusal,  as  well  as  on  account  of  some  other  things 
of  a  similar  nature,  they  have  occasioned  a  serious  schism  in 
their  body.  Our  Episcopal  brethren,  yielding  to  what  ap- 
peared to  them  the  necessity  and  importance  of  introducing  a 
lay  representation  into  their  ecclesiastical  assemblies,  have 
"  lay  deputies"  in  the  lower  house  of  all  their  "  Conventions." 
For  this  feature,  however,  in  their  organization  in  this  coun- 
try, they  do  not  pretend  to  offer  any  divine  warrant.  It  is 
well  known  that  there  is  no  such  feature  in  the  Church  from 
which  they  derive  their  origin ;  and  it  is  without  the  shadow 
of  support  from  any  other  principle  in  their  system  than  that 
which  grows  out  of  the  supposed  right  of  the  Church  to  insti- 
tute, at  her  pleasure,  both  rites  and  offices  which  the  Master 
never  sanctioned.  On  the  contrary,  for  every  part  of  her  sys- 
tem, the  Presbyterian  Church  claims  a  scriptural  warrant. 
She  maintains,  that  no  Church  is  at  liberty  to  appoint  officers, 
or  to  exercise  authority  which  cannot  be  found  in  Scripture. 
She  vests  Ruling  Elders  with  the  function  of  overseeing  and 
governing  in  the  Church — not  because  they  are  convenient 
and  useful,  or  even  necessary;  but  because  she  finds  ample 
evidence  of  their  institution  in  the  Apostolic  Church.  She 
commits  to  appropriate  judicial  assemblies  the  authoritative 
regulation  of  all  her  affairs,  under  the  laws  of  Christ;  not 
merely  because  she  sees  many  human  advantages  resulting 
from  this  system ;  but  also,  and  chiefly  because  she  finds  in 
the  Scriptural  principles  of  the  essential  unity  of  the  visible 
Church,  and  in  the  decisive  example  of  the  Synod  of  Jerusa- 
lem, the  fullest  inspired  warrant  for  this  plan  of  ecclesiastical 
polity.  Let  Presbyterians  rejoice,  that  even  those  denomina- 
tions which  reject,  in  theory,  her  scriptural  representative 
system,  are  compelled,  after  all,  to  resort  to  it  in  fact,  and 
cannot  without  it  preserve  either  unity  or  order. 


CHAPTER  V. 

THE  WORSHIP  OF  THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH. 

A  fundamental  principle  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in 
forming  her  "  Directory  for  the  Worship  of  God,"  is,  that 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  65 

here,  as  in  every  thing  else,  Holy  Scripture  is  the  only  safe 
guide.  One  of  the  earliest  practical  errors  which  gained  ground 
in  the  Christian  community,  was  the  adoption  of  the  principle 
that  the  ministers  of  religion  might  lawfully  add,  at  their 
pleasure,  to  the  rites  and  ceremonies  of  the  Church.  In  con- 
sequence of  the  admission  of  this  error,  Augustine  complained, 
as  early  as  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  that  for  one  ap- 
pointment of  God's,  ten  of  man's  had  crept  into  the  Church, 
and  formed  a  burden  greater,  in  some  respects,  than  was  the 
ceremonial  economy  of  the  Jews.  The  fact  is,  for  the  sake  ot 
drawing  both  Jews  and  Pagans  into  the  Church,  many  rites 
and  ceremonies  were  adopted  from  both,  that  they  might  feel 
more  at  home  in  the  Christian  assemblies.  This  evil  in- 
creased, until,  before  the  Reformation,  it  had  reached  that  re- 
volting amount  of  superstition  which  now  distinguishes  the 
Church  of  Rome. 

It  was  in  reference  to  this  point,  that  our  Fathers,  both  in 
Scotland  and  England,  had  many  conflicts,  when  their  respec- 
tive Churches,  in  those  countries  were  organized  and  settled 
in  the  sixteenth  century.  On  the  one  hand,  the  Prelates,  and 
other  court  clergy  were  in  favour  of  a  splendid  ritual,  and 
were  disposed  to  retain  a  large  number  of  the  ceremonies 
which  had  been  so  long  in  use  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  On 
the  other,  the  Puritans  in  England,  and  the  corresponding 
body  in  Scotland,  contended  that  the  Scriptures  being  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  no  rite  or  ceremony  ought 
to  have  a  place  in  the  public  worship  of  God,  which  is  not 
warranted  in  Scripture,  either  by  direct  precept  or  example, 
or  by  good  and  sufficient  inference.  In  Scotland  the  advocates 
of  primitive  simplicity  prevailed,  and  established  in  their  na- 
tional Church  the  same  mode  of  worship  which  we  believe 
existed  in  the  apostolic  age,  and  which  now  obtains  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  that  country,  and  in  the  United  States. 
In  England,  our  Fathers,  the  Puritans,  were  not  so  happy  as 
to  succeed  in  establishmg  the  same  scriptural  system.  Under 
the  influence  of  the  monarch  and  the  court  clergy,  they  were 
outvoted.  Still  it  is  undoubtedly  certain  that  a  large  portion 
of  the  most  pious  and  devoted  of  the  clergy  of  the  Church  of 
England,  during  the  reign  of  queen  Elizabeth,  and  some  of 
her  most  worthy  dignitaries,  when  the  character  of  that  Church, 
under  its  reformed  regimen,  was  finally  fixed,  did  importu- 
nately plead  for  laying  aside  in  public  worship,  every  thing 
to  which  Presbyterians,  at  the  present  day,  object,  as  having 
no  warrant  in  Scripture.  And  although  they  failed  of  securing 
their  object  in  the  national  Church,  yet  the  descendants  of 


66  WORSHIP  OF  THE 

the  Puritans,  botli  in  that  country  and  our  own,  have  oeen 
permitted  to  realize  their  wishes  as  to  most  of  the  particulars 
on  which  they  then  insisted.  On  some  of  the  principal  of 
these  particulars  it  is  proposed  now  to  dwell,  and  to  assign, 
with  regard  to  each,  our  reasons  for  adhering  to  them  in  our 
system  of  worship. 

But  before  we  proceed  to  this  detail,  it  may  be  useful  to 
offer  a  general  remark  or  two,  which  will  serve  to  show  why 
we  object  to  all  human  inventions  and  additions  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God. 

1.  Christ  is  the  only  King  and  Head  of  the  Church.  His 
word  is  the  law  of  his  house.  Of  course  the  Church  ought 
not  to  consider  herself  as  possessing  any  power  which  that 
word  does  not  warrant.  If,  therefore,  she  cannot  find  in 
Scripture,  authority,  either  direct,  or  fairly  implied,  to  the 
amount  contended  for,  she  does  not  possess  that  authority. 

2.  We  think  that  such  inventions  and  additions  are  ex- 
pressly forbidden  in  Scripture.  The  significant  question 
asked  by  God  of  his  ancient  people,  when  speaking  on  this 
very  subject,  Isaiah  i.  12,  "  Who  hath  required  this  at  your 
hands  ?"  seems  to  be  decisive.  "  Teaching  for  doctrines  the 
commandments  of  men,"  is  spoken  of.  Matt.  xv.  9.  by  our 
blessed  Saviour  as  highly  offensive  to  him.  It  would  seem 
tacitly  to  imply,  that  we  are  wiser  than  God,  and  understand 
the  interests  of  the  Church  better  than  her  Head  and  Lord. 

3.  If  we  once  open  this  door,  how  or  when  shall  it  be  closed  ^ 
The  Church,  we  are  told,  has  power  to  decree  rites  and  cere- 
monies ;  that  is,  a  majority  of  the  ruling  powers  of  the  Church 
have  power  at  any  time,  as  caprice,  or  a  love  of  show,  or  su- 
perstition, or  any  other  motive  may  prompt,  to  add  rite  after 
rite,  and  ceremony  after  ceremony,  at  pleasure,  to  the  worship 
of  God.  Now  if  this  power  be  really  inherent  in  the  Church, 
what  limit  shall  we  put  to  its  exercise  ?  If  she  have  power  to 
add  ten  or  twenty  new  ordinances  to  her  ritual,  has  she  not 
equal  power  to  add  a  hundred,  or  five  hundred,  if  a  majority 
of  her  ministers  should  feel  inclined  to  do  so  ?  And  was  it 
not  precisely  in  this  way,  and  upon  this  very  principle,  that 
the  enormous  mass  of  superstition  which  characterizes  the 
Papacy,  gradually  accumulated?  Surely,  a  power  which 
carries  with  it  no  limit  but  human  caprice,  and  which  has 
been  so  manifestly  and  shockingly  abused  in  past  ages,  ought 
by  no  means  to  be  claimed  or  exercised  in  the  Church  of  God. 
But  to  be  more  particular. 

Section  \.— -Presbyterians  reject  prescribed  Liturgies. 

We  do  not,  indeed,  consider  the  use  of  forms  of  prayer  as 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  .  67 

in  all  cases  unlawful.  We  do  not  doubt  that  they  have  been 
often  useful,  and  that  to  many  this  mode  of  conducting  public 
devotions  is  highly  edifying.  If  any  minister  of  our  Church 
should  think  proper  to  compose  a  form  of  prayer,  or  a  variety 
of  forms,  for  his  own  use,  or  to  borrow  those  which  have  been 
prepared  by  others,  he  ought  to  be  considered  as  at  perfect 
liberty  so  to  do.  But  we  object  to  being  confined  to  forms  ot 
prayer.  We  contend  that  it  is  of  great  importance  to  the  edi- 
fication of  the  Church,  that  every  minister  be  left  at  liberty  to 
conduct  the  devotions  of  the  sanctuary  as  his  circumstances, 
and  the  dispensations  of  Providence,  may  demand.  Our  rea- 
sons for  adopting  this  judgment,  and  a  corresponding  practice, 
are  the  following : 

1.  We  think  it  perfectly  evident  that  no  forms  of  prayer — 
no  prescribed  Liturgies  Avere  used  in  the  apostolic  age  of  the 
Church.  We  read  of  none  ;  nor  do  we  find  the  smallest  hint 
that  any  thing  of  the  kind  was  then  employed  in  either  public 
or  social  worship.  Will  the  most  zealous  advocates  of  Litur- 
gies point  out  even  a  probable  example  of  the  use  of  one  in 
the  New  Testament?  Can  any  one  believe  that  Paul  used  a 
prescribed  form  of  prayer  when  he  took  leave  of  the  Elders . 
of  Ephesus,  after  giving  them  a  solemn  charge  ?  Acts  xx.  37. 
Can  it  be  imagined  that  he  used  a  Liturg)?  when,  in  bidding 
farewell  to  a  circle  of  friends  in  the  city  of  Tyre,  who  had 
treated  him  with  kindness,  he  kneeled  down  on  the  sea  shore 
and  prayed  with  them  ?  Or  can  we  suppose  that  he  and  Silas 
read  from  a  book,  when,  at  midnight,  in  the  prison  at  Philip- 
pi,  they  prayed  and  sang  praises  unto  God  ?  Again ;  when 
Paul  exhorted  Timothy  to  see  that  "kings  and  all  in  authori- 
ty" were  remembered  in  public  prayer,  is  it  not  evident  that 
the  Church  had  no  Liturgy  ?  If  she  had  been  furnished  with 
one,  and  confined  to  it,  such  direction  would  have  been  un- 
necessary, or  rather  absurd ;  for  they  would  have  had  their 
prayers  all  prepared  to  their  hand.  In  short,  when  we  find 
prayer  spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament  on  a  great  variety  ot 
occasions,  and  in  a  great  variety  of  language,  is  it  not  passing 
strange,  if  Liturgies  were  then  used,  that  no  turn  of  expres- 
sion, giving  the  remotest  hint  of  it,  should  be  employed  ? 
Surely,  if  forms  of  prayer  had  been  regarded  in  the  days  of 
the  Apostles,  as  not  only  obligatory,  but  so  highly  important 
as  some  Protestants  now  profess  to  regard  them ;  who  can 
believe  that  the  inspired  writers  would  have  passed  over 
them  in  entire  silence  ?  The  very  least  that  we  can  infer 
from  this  circumstance  is,  that  the  use  of  them  is  not  binding 
on  the  Church.  The  primitive  Christians  had  indeed,  pre- 
6  * 


1 


68  WORSHIP  OF  THE 

composed  Psalms  and  Hymns,  which  they  united  in  singing, 
and  probably,  a  miiform  method,  derived  from  the  example 
and  letters  of  the  first  ministers,  of  administering  the  sacra- 
ments, and  blessing  the  people ;  but  so  have  Presbyterians, 
and  various  other  ecclesiastical  bodies,  who  yet  are  not  consi- 
dered as  using  a  Liturgy.  These,  of  course,  have  no  appli- 
cation to  the  present  inquiry. 

2.  The  Lord's  Prayer,  given  at  the  request  of  the  disciples, 
forms  no  objection  to  this  conclusion.  It  was,  evidently,  not 
intended  to  be  used  as  an  exact,  and  far  less  as  an  exclusive 
form.  It  is  not  given  in  the  same  words  by  any  two  of  the 
Evangelists.  As  it  was  given  before  the  New  Testament 
Church  was  set  up,  so  it  is  stiictly  adapted  to  the  old  rather 
than  the  new  economy.  It  contains  no  clause,  asking  for 
blessings  in  the  name  of  Christ,  which  the  Saviour  himself 
afterwards  solemnly  enjoined  as  indispensable.  After  the 
resurrection  and  ascension  of  Christ,  when  the  New  Testa- 
ment Church  was  set  up,  we  read  nothing  more  in  the  in- 
spired history  concerning  the  use  of  this  form.  And  it  is  not 
until  several  centuries  after  the  apostolic  age,  that  we  find  this 
prayer  statedly  introduced  into  public  worship.  Accordingly, 
it  is  remarkable,  that  Augustine,  in  the  fourth  century,  ex- 
presses the  decisive  opinion,  "  that  Christ  intended  this  prayer 
as  a  model  rather  than  a  form ;  that  he  did  not  mean  to  teach 
his  disciples  what  words  they  should  use  in  prayer,  but  what 
things  they  should  pray  for." 

3.  No  such  thing  as  a  prescribed  form  of  prayer  appears 
to  have  been  known  in  the  Christian  Church,  for  several  hun- 
dred years  after  Christ.  The  contrary  is,  indeed,  often  as- 
serted by  the  friends  of  Liturgies,  but  wholly  without  evidence ; 
nay,  against  the  most  conclusive  evidence.  The  most  respecta- 
ble early  writers  who  undertake  to  give  an  account  of  the 
worship  of  the  early  Christians,  make  use  of  language  which 
is  utterly  irreconcilcable  with  the  practice  of  reading  prayers. 
They  tell  us,  that  the  minister,  or  person  who  led  in  prayer, 
"  poured  out  prayers  according  to  his  ability;"  that  he  prayed, 
"  closing  his  bodily  eyes,  and  lifting  up  the  eyes  of  his  mind, 
and  streti  hing  forth  his  hands  toward  heaven."  Surely,  in 
this  posture,  it  was  impossible  to  "  read  prayers."  Socrates 
and  Sozomen,  respectable  ecclesiastical  historians,  who  wrote 
in  the  fifth  century,  both  concur  in  declaring,  that,  in  their 
day,  "  no  two  persons  were  found  to  use  the  same  words  in 
public  worship."  And  Augustine,  who  was  nearly  their 
contemporary,  declares,  in  relation  to  this  subject,—"  There 
is  freedom  to  use  different  words,  provided  the  same  things 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  69 

are  mentioned  in  prayer."  Basil,  in  the  fourth  century, 
giving  directions  about  prayer,  remarks,  that  there  were  two 
parts  of  this  service;  first,  thanksgiving  and  praise,  with 
self-abasement;  and,  secondly,  petition.  He  advises  to  be- 
gin with  the  former,  and,  in  doing  it,  to  make  choice  of  the 
language  of  Scripture.  After  giving  an  example  of  his  mean- 
ing, he  adds,  "  When  thou  hast  praised  him  out  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, as  thou  art  able,  (a  strange  clause,  truly,  if  all  had  been 
prepared  before  hand,  and  read  out  of  a  book,)  then  proceea 
to  petition."' — Clarkson  on  Liturgies,  p.  120.  Would  not 
all  this  be  manifestly  absurd,  if  public  prayer  had  been  by  a 
prescribed  Liturgy  in  Basil's  days?  The  truth  is,  it  is  evi- 
dent that  extemporary  or  free  prayer  was  generally  used  in 
the  primitive  Church,  and  continued  to  be  used  until  ortho- 
doxy and  piety  declined,  and  the  grace  as  well  as  the  gift  of 
prayer  greatly  diminished.  Then  ministers  began  to  seek  the 
best  aid  that  they  could  procure.  The  Church,  however,  at 
large,  even  then,  provided  no  Liturgies  ;  but  each  pastor,  who 
felt  unable  to  pray  extemporaneously,  procured  prayers  com- 
posed by  other  individuals,  which  he  used  in  public.  Accord- 
ingly, Augustine  tells  us,  that  some  ministers  in  his  day,  (a 
period  in  which  we  have  complete  evidence  that  many  of  the 
sacred  order  were  so  uneducated  as  to  be  unable  to  write  their 
own  names)  "  lighted  upon  prayers  which  were  composed 
not  only  by  ignorant  babblers,  but  also  by  heretics ;  and 
through  the  simplicity  of  their  ignorance,  having  no  proper 
discernment,  they  made  use  of  them,  supposing  them  to  be 
good."  Surely,  this  could  never  have  happened,  if  the  Church 
had  been  accustomed  at  that  time  to  the  use  of  prescribed 
Liturgies.  In  short,  the  very  first  document  in  the  form  of  a 
prayer-book,  of  which  we  read,  is  a  Libellus  Officialis,  men- 
tioned in  the  proceedings  of  the  council  of  Toledo,  in  the  year 
633  after  Christ;  and  that  was,  evidently,  rather  a  "Directo- 
ry for  the  worship  of  God,"  than  a  complete  Liturgy.  There 
is,  indeed,  evidence  that,  before  this  time,  mini-sters,  deficient 
in  talents  and  piety,  either  wrote  prayers  for  themselves,  or 
procured  them  from  others,  as  before  stated ;  but  the  first  hint 
to  be  found  of  an  ecclesiastical  body  interposing  to  regulate 
the  business  of  public  prayer,  appears  about  the  middle  of  the 
fifth  century. 

With  respect  to  the  boasted  Liturgies  of  St.  Mark,  St. 
James,  &c.,  of  which  we  often  hear,  all  enlightened  Protes- 
tants, it  is  believed,  agree  that  they  are  manifestly  forgeries ; 
and  as  to  the  Liturgies  attributed  to  Chrysostom,  Basil,  and 
several  otheis  of  the  early  Christian  Fathers,  bishop  White, 


WORSHIP  OF  THE 


an  English  prelate,  who  lived  in  the  seventeenth  century,  de- 
livers the  following  opinion: — '*The  Liturgies,"  says  he, 
"  fathered  upon  St.  Basil  and  St.  Chrysostom,  have  a  known 
mother,  (to  wit,  the  Church  of  Rome ;)  but  there  is  (besides 
many  other  just  exceptions)  so  great  a  dissimilitude  between 
the  supposed  fathers  of  the  children,  that  they  rather  argue 
the  dishonest  dealings  of  their  mother,  than  serve  as  lawful 
witnesses  of  that  which  the  adversary  intended  to  prove  by 
them." — Tracts  against  Fisher,  the  Jesuit,  p.  377. 

4.  If  the  Apostles,  or  any  apostolic  men,  had  prepared 
and  given  to  the  Church  any  thing  like  a  Liturgy,  we  should, 
doubtless,  have  had  it  preserved,  and  transmitted  with  care  to 
posterity.  The  Church,  in  this  case,  would  have  had  one  uni- 
form book  of  prayers,  which  would  have  been  in  use,  and  held 
precious,  throughout  the  whole  Christian  community.  But 
nothing  of  this  kind  has  ever  been  pretended  to  exist.  For  let  it 
be  remembered,  that  the  prayers,  in  the  Romish  and  English 
Liturgies,  ascribed  to  some  of  the  early  Fathers  of  the  Church, 
and  even  to  apostolical  men,  supposing  them  to  be  genuine, 
which,  by  good  judges,  as  we  have  just  seen,  is  more  than 
doubted, — were  not  Liturgies,  but  short  prayers,  or  "  col- 
lects," just  such  as  thousands  of  Presbyterian  ministers,  who 
never  thought  of  using  a  Liturgy,  have  composed,  in  their 
moments  of  devout  retirement,  and  left  among  their  private 
papers.  Who  doubts  that  devotional  composition  is  made  by 
multitudes  who  reject  the  use  of  prescribed  forms  of  prayer 
in  public  worship  ?  Accordingly,  when  Liturgies  were  gra- 
dually introduced  into  general  use,  in  the  sixth  and  subsequent 
centuries,  on  account  of  the  decline  of  piety  and  learning 
among  the  clergy,  there  was  no  uniformity  even  among  the 
churches  of  the  same  state  or  kingdom.  Every  Bishop,  in 
his  own  diocese,  appointed  what  prayers  he  pleased,  and  even 
indulged  his  taste  for  variety.  Accordingly,  it  is  a  notorious 
fact,  which  confirms  this  statement,  that  when  the  Reforma- 
tion commenced  in  England,  the  established  Romish  Church 
in  that  country  had  no  single  uniform  Liturgy  for  the  whole 
kingdom ;  but  there  seems  to  have  been  a  different  one  for  the 
diocese  of  every  Bishop.  And  when,  in  the  second  year  of 
king  Edward's  reign,  the  principal  ecclesiastical  dignitaries 
of  the  kingdom  were  directed  to  digest  and  report  one  uniform 
plan  for  the  public  service  of  the  whole  Church,  they  collated 
and  compared  the  five  Romish  missals  of  the  several  dioceses 
of  Sarum,  York,  Hereford,  Bangor,  and  Lincoln,  and  out  of 
these  formed  a  Liturgy  for  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
of  England.     So  that  the  Prayer-books  which  had  been  used 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  71 

in  five  Popish  bishoprics,  constituted  the  basis  of  the  first 
Liturgy  of  king  Edward,  and  consequently  of  the  book  of 
Common  Prayer,  as  now  used  in  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States.  This  Liturgy,  at  first,  contained  a  number  of  things 
so  grossly  Popish,  that,  when  it  was  read  by  Calvin  and 
others,  on  the  continent  of  Europe,  to  whom  copies  were  sent 
for  obtaining  their  opinion,  their  severe  criticisms  led  to  ano 
ther  review,  and  a  considerable  purgation.  Still  a  number  oi 
articles  were  left,  acknowledged  on  all  hands  to  have  been 
adopted  from  the  missals  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  which,  as 
stated  in  various  parts  of  this  chapter,  exceedingly  grieved  th6 
more  pious  and  evangehcal  part  of  the  Church ;  but  which 
the  queen,  and  the  ecclesiastics  more  immediately  around  her 
person,  refused  to  exclude.  Their  antiquity  was  plead  as  an 
argument  in  their  favour. 

5.  Confining  ministers  to  forms  of  prayer  in  public  wor- 
ship, tends  to  restrain  and  discourage  the  spirit  of  prayer 
We  cannot  help  thinking,  that  the  constant  repetition  of  the 
same  words,  from  year  to  year,  tends  to  produce,  at  least  with 
very  many  persons,  dullness,  and  a  loss  of  interest.  We  are 
sure  it  is  so  with  not  a  few.  Bishop  Wilkins,  though  a  friend 
to  the  use  of  fonns  of  prayer,  when  needed,  argues  strongly 
against  binding  ourselves  entirely  to  such  "leading  strings," 
as  he  emphatically  calls  them,  and  expresses  the  opinion,  that 
giving  vent  to  the  desires  and  affections  of  the  heart  in  extem- 
porary prayer,  is  highly  favourable  to  growth  in  grace. — Gift 
of  Prayer,  chap.  IL  p.  10,  11.  Accordingly,  it  is  remarka- 
ble that,  when  those  who  were  once  distinguished  for  praying 
extemporaneously,  with  fluency  and  unction,  lay  aside  this 
habit,  and  confine  themselves  to  stinted  forms  for  many  years, 
they  are  apt  to  manifest  a  striking  decline  in  the  spirit  of  de- 
votion, and  are  no  longer  able  to  engage  in  free  prayer  with- 
out much  hesitation  and  embarrassment. 

6.  No  form  of  prayer,  however  ample  or  diversified,  can 
be  accommodated  to  all  the  circumstances,  exigencies,  and 
wants  of  either  individual  Christians,  or  of  the  Church  in 
general.  Now,  when  cases  occur  which  are  not  provided  for 
in  the  prescribed  forms,  what  is  to  be  done  ?  Either  extem- 
porary prayer  must  be  ventured  upon,  or  the  cases  in  question 
cannot  be  carried  before  the  throne  of  grace,  in  words,  at  all. 
Is  this  alternative  desirable  ?  Cases  of  this  kind  have  occurred, 
approaching  the  ludicrous,  in  which  ministers  have  declined 
engaging  in  social  prayer  in  situations  of  the  deepest  interest, 
because  they  could  find  nothing  in  their  Prayer-book  adapted 
to  the  occasion !     Nay,  so  common  and  so  interesting  a  ser- 


72  WORSHIP  OF  THE 

vice  as  tne  monthly  concert  in  prayer,  on  the  first  Monday 
evening  of  every  month,  can  never  be  attended  upon  by  an 
Episcopal  pastor,  in  an  appropriate  and  seasonable  manner, 
without  indulging  in  extemporary  prayer.  This  has  been, 
more  than  once,  confessed  and  lamented  by  ministers  of  that 
denomination. 

7.  It  is  no  small  argument  against  confining  ministers  and 
people  to  a  prescribed  form,  that  whenever  rehgion  is  in  a 
lively  state  in  the  heart  of  a  minister  accustomed  to  use  a 
Liturgy,  and  especially  when  it  is  powerfully  revived  among 
the  members  of  his  church,  his  form  of  prayer  will  seldom 
fail  to  be  deemed  an  undesirable  restraint ;  and  this  feeling 
will  commonly  either  vent  itself  in  fervent  extemporary  prayer, 
or  result  in  languor  and  decline  under  restriction  to  his  form. 
The  more  rigorous  and  exclusive  the  confinement  to  a  pre- 
scribed form,  the  more  cold  and  lifeless  will  the  prevailing 
formality  generally  be  found.  The  excellent  Mr.  Baxter  ex- 
presses the  same  idea  with  more  unqualified  strength  : — "  A 
constant  form,"  says  he,  *'is  a  certain  way  to  bring  the  soul 
to  a  cold,  insensible,  formal  worship." — Five  Disputations, 
^c.  p.  385. 

8.  Once  more :  prescribed  Liturgies,  which  remain  in  use 
from  age  to  age,  have  a  tendency  to  fix,  to  perpetuate,  and 
even  to  coerce  the  adoption  and  propagation  of  error.  It  is 
not  forgotten,  that  the  advocates  of  Liturgies  urge,  as  an  argu- 
ment in  their  favour,  a  consideration  directly  the  converse  of 
this,  viz.,  that  they  tend,  by  their  scriptural  and  pious  charac- 
ter, to  extend  and  perpetuate  the  reign  of  truth  in  a  Church. 
Where  their  character  is  really  thus  thoroughly  scriptural, 
they  may,  no  doubt,  exert,  in  this  respect,  a  favourable  influ- 
ence ;  but  where  they  teach  or  insinuate  error,  the  mischief 
can  scarcely  fail  to  be  deep,  deplorable,  and  transmitted  from 
generation  to  generation.  Of  this,  painfuL  examples  might 
be  given,  if  it  were  consistent  with  the  brevity  of  this  sketch, 
to  enter  on  such  a  field. 

On  the  whole,  after  carefiiUy  comparing  the  advantages  and 
lisadvantages  of  free  and  prescribed  prayer,  the  argument, 
whether  drawn  from  Scripture,  from  ecclesiastical  history,  or 
from  daily  experience,  is  clearly  in  favour  of  free  or  extem- 
porary prayer.  Its  generally  edifying  character  may,  indeed, 
sometimes  be  marred  by  weak  and  ignorant  men ;  but  we 
have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  balance  is  manifestly  in 
its  favour.  For,  after  all,  the  difficulty  which  S!?metimes  oc- 
curs in  rendering  extemporary  prayer  impressive  and  edifying, 
is  by  no  means  obviated,  in  all  cases,  by  the  use  of  a  Prayer- 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  73 

book.  Who  has  not  witnessed  the  recitation  of  devotional 
forms  conducted  in  such  a  manner  as  to  disgust  every  hearer 
of  taste,  and  to  banish  all  seriousness  from  the  mind  ?  As 
long  as  ministers  of  the  Gospel  are  pious  men ;  "  workmen 
that  need  not  be  ashamed ;"  qualified  "  rightly  to  divide  the 
word  of  truth,"  and  "mighty  in  the  Scriptures,"  they  will 
find  no  difficulty  in  conducting  free  prayer  to  the  honour  of 
religion,  and  to  the  edification  of  the  Church.  When  they 
cease  to  possess  this  character^they  must  have  forms,  they 
ought  to  have  forms  of  devotion  provided  for  them.  It  was 
precisely  in  such  a  state  of  things  that  the  use  of  Liturgies 
gradually  crept  into  the  Christian  Church  in  the  fifth  and  sixth 
centuries.  But  it  is  manifestly  the  fault  of  ministers,  if  ex- 
temporary prayer  be  not  made,  what  it  may,  and  ought  ever 
to  be, — among  the  most  tender,  touching,  and  deeply  impres- 
sive of  all  the  services  of  the  public  sanctuary. 

Section  II. — Presbyterians  do  not  observe  Holy-days 

We  believe,  and  teach,  in  our  public  formularies,  that 
"  there  is  no  day,  under  the  Gospel  dispensation,  commanded 
to  be  kept  holy,  except  the  Lord's  day,  which  is  the  Chris- 
tian Sabbath." 

We  believe,  indeed,  and  declare,  in  the  same  formula,  that 
it  is  both  scriptural  and  rational,  to  observe  special  days  of 
Fasting  and  Thanksgiving,  as  the  extraordinary  dispensations 
of  Divine  Providence  may  direct.  But  we  are  persuaded, 
that  even  the  keeping  of  these  days,  >vhen  they  are  made 
stated  observances,  recurring,  of  course,  at  particular  times, 
whatever  the  aspect  of  Providence  may  be,  is  calculated  to 
promote  formality  and  superstition,  rather  than  the  edification 
of  the  body  of  Christ. 

Our  reasons  for  entertaining  this  opinion,  are  the  follow- 
ing: 

1 .  We  are  persuaded  that  there  is  no  scriptural  warrant  for 
such  observances,  either  from  precept  or  example.  There  is 
no  hint  in  the  New  Testament  that  such  days  were  either 
observed  or  recommended  by  the  Apostles,  or  by  any  of  the 
churches  in  their  time.  The  mention  of  Easter,  in  Acts  xii. 
4,  has  no  application  to  this  subject.  Herod  was  a  Jew,  not 
a  Christian ;  and,  of  course,  had  no  desire  to  honour  a  Chris- 
tian solemnity.  The  real  meaning  of  the  passage  is, — as  the 
slightest  inspection  of  the  original  will  satisfy  every  intelligent 
reader ;  "  intending  after  the  passover  to  bring  him  forth  to 
the  people." 

2.  We  believe  that  the  Scriptures  not  only  do  not  warrant 


74  WORSHIP  01  THE 

the  observance  of  such  days,  but  that  they  positively  discoun 
tenance  it.     Let  any  one  impartially  weigh  Colossians  ii.  16 
and  also,  Galatians  iv.  9,  10,  11 ;  and  then  say  whether  these 
passages  do  not  evidently  indicate,  that  the  inspired  Apostle 
disapproved  of  the  observance  of  such  days, 

3.  The  observance  of  Fasts  and  Festivals,  by  divine  direc- 
tion, under  the  Old  Testament  economy,  makes  nothing  in 
favour  of  such  observances  under  the  New  Testament  dis- 
pensation. That  economy  was  no  longer  binding,  or  even 
lawful,  after  the  New  Testament  Church  was  set  up.  It  were 
just  as  reasonable  to  plead  for  the  present  use  of  the  Passover, 
the  incense,  and  the  burnt  offerings  of  the  Old  economy, 
which  were  confessedly  done  away  by  the  coming  of  Christ, 
as  to  argue  in  favour  of  human  inventions,  bearing  some  re- 
semblance to  them,  as  binding  in  the  Christian  Church. 

4.  The  history  of  the  introduction  of  stated  Fasts  and  Fes- 
tivals by  the  early  Christians,  speaks  much  against  both  their 
obligation,  and  their  edifying  character.  Their  origin  was 
ignoble.  They  were  chiefly  brought  in,  by  carnal  policy,  for 
the  purpose  of  drawing  into  the  Church  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
who  had  both  been  accustomed  to  festivals  and  holy-days. 
And  from  the  moment  of  their  introduction,  they  became  the 
signal  for  strife,  or  the  monuments  of  worldly  expedient,  and 
degrading  superstition. 

As  there  were  no  holy-days,  excepting  the  Lord's  day, 
observed  in  the  Christian  Church  while  the  Apostles  lived ; 
and  nb  hint  given,  that  they  thought  any  other  expedient  or 
desirable  ;  so  we  find  no  hint  of  any  such  observance  having 
been  adopted  until  towards  the  close  of  the  second  century. 
Then,  the  celebration  of  Easter  gave  rise  to  a  controversy ; 
the  Asiatic  Christians  pleading  for  its  observance  at  the  same 
time  which  was  prescribed  for  the  Jewish  Passover,  and  con- 
tending that  they  were  supported  in  this  by  apostolic  tradi- 
tion ;  while  the  Western  Church  contended  for  its  stated  cele- 
bration on  a  certain  Sunday,  and  urged,  with  equal  confidence, 
apostolic  tradition  in  favour  of  their  scheme.  Concerning  this 
fierce  and  unhallowed  controversy,  Socrates,  the  ecclesiastical 
historian,  who  wrote  soon  after  the  time  of  Eusebius,  and  be- 
gins his  history  where  the  latter  closes  his  narrative ;  speak- 
ing on  the  controversy  concerning  Easter,  expresses  himself 
thus:  "  Neither  the  ancients,  nor  the  fathers  of  later  times,  I 
mean  such  as  favoured  the  Jewish  custom,  had  sufficient  cause 
to  contend  so  eagerly  about  the  feast  of  Easter ;  for  they  con- 
sidered not  within  themselves,  that  when  the  Jewish  rehgion 
was  changed  into  Christianity,  the  literal  observance  of  the 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  75 

Mosaic  law,  and  the  types  of  things  to  come,  wholly  ceased. 
And  this  canies  with  it  its  own  evidence.  For  no  one  of 
Christ's  laws  permits  Christians  to  observe  the  rites  of  the 
Jews.  Nay,  the  Aposde  hath  in  plain  words  forbidden  ,it, 
where  he  abrogates  circumcision,  and  exhorts  us  not  to  con 
tend  about  feasts  and  holy-days.  For,  writing  to  the  Gala- 
tians,  he  admonishes  them  not  to  observe  days,  and  months, 
and  times,  and  years.  And  unto  the  Colossians,  he  is  as 
plain  as  may  be,  declaring,  that  the  observance  of  such  things 
was  but  a  shadow.  Neither  the  Apostles  nor  the  Evangelists 
have  enjoined  on  Christians  the  observance  of  Easter;  but 
have  left  the  remembrance  of  it  to  the  free  choice  and  discre- 
tion of  those  who  have  been  benefited  by  such  days.  Men 
keep  holy-days,  because  thereon  they  enjoy  rest  from  toil  and 
labour.  Therefore,  it  comes  to  pass,  that  in  every  place  they 
do  celebrate,  of  their  own  accord,  the  remembrance  of  the 
Lord's  passion.  But  neither  our  Saviour  nor  his  Apostles 
have  any  where  commanded  us  to  observe  it."  Socrates,  Lib. 
5,  cap.  21. 

Here,  then,  is  an  eminent  Christian  writer  who  flourished 
early  in  the  fifth  century,  who  had  made  the  history  of  the 
Church  his  particular  study;  who  explicitly  declares,  that 
neither  Christ  nor  his  Apostles  gave  any  command,  or  even 
countenance  to  the  observance  of  festival  days ;  that  it  was 
brought  into  the  Church  by  custom;  and  that  in  diflerent 
parts  of  the  Church  there  was  diversity  of  practice  in  regard 
to  this  matter.  With  respect  to  Easter,  in  particular,  this 
diversity  was  striking.  We  no  sooner  hear  of  its  observance 
at  all,  than  we  begin  to  hear  of  contest,  and  interruption  of 
Christian  fellowship  on  account  of  it ;  some  quoting  the  au- 
thority of  some  of  the  Aposdes  for  keeping  this  festival  on 
one  day ;  and  others,  with  equal  confidence,  quoting  the  au- 
thority of  other  Apostles  for  the  selection  of  a  diff"erent  day : 
thereby  clearly  demonstrating,  that  there  was  error  some- 
where, and  rendering  it  highly  probable  that  all  parties  were 
wrong,  and  that  no  such  observances  at  all,  were  binding  on 
Christians. 

The  festival  of  Easter,  no  doubt,  was  introduced  in  the 
second  century,  in  place  of  the  Passover,  and  in  accommo- 
dation to  the  same  Jewish  prejudice  which  had  said,  even 
during  the  apostolic  age,  "Except  ye  be  circumcised,  after 
the  manner  of  Moses,  ye  cannot  be  saved."  Hence,  it  was 
generally  called  pascha,  and  pasch,  in  conformity  with  the 
name  of  the  Jewish  festival,  whose  place  it  took.  It  seems 
to  have  received  the  title  of  Easter  in  Great  Britain,  froui  the 

7 


76  WORSHIP  OF  THE 

circumstance,  that,  when  Christianity  was  introduced  into 
that  country,  a  great  Pagan  festival,  celebrated  at  the  same 
season  of  the  year,  in  honour  of  the  Pagan  goddess  Eostre, 
yielded  its  place  to  the  Christian  festival,  which  received, 
substantially,  the  name  of  the  Pagan  deity.  The  title  of 
Easter,  it  is  believed,  is  seldom  used  but  by  Britons  and  their 
descendants. 

Few  festivals  are  celebrated  in  the  Romish  Church,  and  in 
some  Protestant  Churches,  with  more  interest  and  zeal  tlian 
Christmas.  Yet  when  Origen,  about  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  professes  to  give  a  list  of  the  fasts  and  festivals  which 
were  observed  in  his  day,  he  makes  no  mention  of  Christmas. 
From  this  fact.  Sir  Peter  King,  in  his  "  Inquiry  into  the  Con- 
stitution and  worship,  (fee.  of  the  Primitive  Church,"  &:c.,  in- 
fers, that  no  such  festival  was  then  observed;  and  adds,  "It 
seems  improbable  that  they  should  celebrate  Christ's  nativity, 
when  they  disagreed  about  the  month  and  the  day  when 
Christ  was  born."  Every  month  in  the  year  has  been  as- 
signed by  different  portions  and  writers  of  the  Christian  Church 
as  the  time  of  our  Lord's  nativity  ;  and  the  final  location  of 
this,  as  well  as  other  holy-days,  in  the  ecclesiastical  calendar, 
was  adjusted  rather  upon  astronomical  and  mathematical 
principles,  than  on  any  solid  calculations  of  history. 

5.  But  the  motives  and  manner  of  introducing  Christmas 
into  the  Christian  Church,  speak  more  strongly  against  it.  Its 
real  origin  was  this.  Like  many  other  observances,  it  was 
borrowed  from  the  heathen.  The  well  known  Pagan  festival 
among  the  Romans,  distinguished  by  the  title  of  Saturnalia, 
because  instituted  in  honour  of  their  fabled  deity,  Saturn,  was 
celebrated  by  them  with  the  greatest  splendour,  extravagance, 
and  debauchery.  It  was,  during  its  continuance,  a  season  of 
freedom  and  equality ;  the  master  ceased  to  rule,  and  the  slave 
to  obey ;  the  former  waiting  at  his  own  table  upon  the  latter, 
and  submitting  to  the  suspension  of  all  order,  and  the  reign  of 
universal  frolic.  The  ceremonial  of  this  festival  was  opened 
on  the  19th  of  December,  by  lighting  a  profusion  of  waxen 
candles  in  the  temple  of  Saturn  ;  and  by  suspending  in  their 
temple,  and  in  all  their  habitations,  boughs  of  laurel,  and  va- 
rious kinds  of  evergreen.  The  Christian  Church,  seeing  the 
unhappy  moral  influence  of  this  festival ;  perceiving  her  own 
members  too  often  partaking  in  its  licentiousness  ;  and  desi- 
rous, if  possible,  of  effecting  its  abolition,  appointed  a  festival, 
in  honour  of  her  Master's  birth,  nearly  about  the  same  time, 
for  the  purpose  of  superseding  it.  In  doing  this,  the  policy 
was  to  retain  us  many  of  these  habits  which  had  prevailed  in 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  77 

the  Saturnalia  as  could  in  any  way  be  reconciled  with  the  pu- 
rity of  Christianity.  They  made  their  new  festival,  therefore, 
a  season  of  relaxation  and  mirth,  of  cheerful  visiting,  and  mu- 
tual presents.  They  lighted  candles  in  their  places  of  wor- 
ship, rnd  adorned  them  with  a  profusion  of  evergreen  boughs. 
Thus  did  the  Romish  Church  borrow  from  the  Pagans  some 
of  her  most  prominent  observances  ;  and  thus  have  some  ob- 
servances of  this  origin  been  adopted  and  continued  by  Pro- 
testants. 

6.  It  being  evident,  then,  that  stated  fasts  and  festivals  have 
no  divine  warrant,  and  that  their  use  under  the  New  Testa- 
ment economy  is  a  mere  human  invention  ;  we  may  ask  those 
who  are  friendly  to  their  observance,  what  Umits  ought  to  be 
set  to  their  adoption  and  use  in  the  Christian  Church?  If  it 
be  lawful  to  introduce  five  such  days  for  stated  observance, 
why  not  ten,  twenty,  or  five  score  ?  A  small  number  were,  at 
an  early  period,  brought  into  use  by  serious  men,  who  thought 
they  were  thereby  rendering  God  service,  and  extending  the 
reign  of  religion.  But  one  after  another  was  added,  as  super- 
stition increased,  until  the  calendar  became  burdened  with  be- 
tween two  and  three  hundred  fasts  and  festivals,  or  saint's  days, 
in  each  year ;  thus  materially  interfering  with  the  claims  of 
secular  industry,  and  loading  the  worship  of  God  with  a  mass 
of  superstitious  observances,  equally  unfriendly  to  the  tempo- 
ral and  the  eternal  interests  of  men.  Let  the  principle  once 
be  admitted,  that  stated  days  of  religious  observance,  which 
God  has  no  where  commanded,  may  properly  be  introduced 
into  the  Christian  ritual,  and,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  every 
one  who,  from  good  motives,  can  effect  the  introduction  of  a 
new  religious  festival,  is  at  liberty  to  do  so.  Upon  this  prin- 
ciple was  built  up  the  enormous  mass  of  superstition  which 
now  distinguishes  and  corrupts  the  Romish  Church. 

7.  The  observance  of  uncommanded  holy-days  is  ever  found 
to  interfere  with  the  due  sanctification  of  the  Lord's  day. 
Adding  to  the  appointments  of  God  is  superstition.  And  su- 
perstition has  ever  been  found  unfriendly  to  genuine  obedience. 
Its  votaries,  like  the  Jews  of  old,  have  ever  been  found  more 
tenacious  of  their  own  inventions,  of  traditionary  dreams,  than 
of  God's  revealed  code  of  duty.  Accordingly,  there  is,  per- 
haps, no  fact  more  universal  and  unquestionable,  than  that  the 
zealous  observers  of  stated  fasts  and  festivals  are  characteris- 
tically lax  in  the  observance  ^f  that  one  day  which  God  has 
eminently  set  apart  for  himself,  and  on  the  sanctification  of 
which  all  the  vital  interests  of  practical  religion  are  suspended. 
So  it  was  among  the  Israelites  of  old.     As  early  as  the  fifth 


7S  WORSHIP  OF  THE 

century,  Augustine  complains  that  the  superstitious  observance 
of  unconimanded  rites,  betrayed  many  in  his  time,  into  a  spirit 
of  irreverence  and  neglect  towards  those  which  were  divinely 
appointed.  So  it  is,  notoriously,  among  the  Romanists  at  the 
present  day.  And  so,  without  any  breach  of  charity,  it  may 
be  said  to  be  in  every  religious  community  in  which  zeal  for 
the  observance  of  uncommanded  holy-days  prevails.  It  is 
true,  many  in  those  communities  tell  us,  that  the  observance 
of  holy-days,  devoted  to  particular  persons  and  events  in  the 
history  of  the  Church,  has  a  manifest  and  strong  tendency  to 
increase  the  spirit  of  piety.  But  if  this  be  so,  we  might  ex- 
pect to  find  much  more  scriptural  piety  in  the  Romish  Church 
than  in  any  other,  since  holy-days  are  ten  times  more  numer- 
ous in  that  denommation  than  in  the  system  of  any  Protestant 
Church.  But  is  it  so  ?  Let  those  who  have  eyes  to  see,  and 
ears  to  hear,  decide. 

If  the  foregoing  allegations  be  in  any  measure  well  founded ; 
if  there  be  no  warrant  in  God's  word  for  any  observances  of 
this  kind ;  if,  on  the  contrary,  the  Scriptures  positively  dis- 
courage them  ;  if  the  history  of  their  introduction  and  increase 
mark  an  unhallowed  origin ;  if,  when  we  once  open  the  door 
to  such  human  inventions,  no  one  can  say  how  or  when  it  may 
be  closed ;  and  if  the  observance  of  days,  not  appointed  of  God, 
has  ever  been  found  to  exert  an  unfriendly  influence  on  the 
sanctification  of  that  holy-day  which  God  has  appointed,  surely 
we  need  no  further  proof  that  it  is  wise  to  discard  them  from 
our  ecclesiastical  system. 

Section  III. — We  reject  God-fathers  and  God-mothers  in 
Baptism. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  differs  from 
Roman  Catholics  and  Episcopalians,  in  regard  to  sponsors  in 
baptism.  We  differ  in  two  respects.  First,  in  not  requiring 
or  encouraging  the  appearance  of  any  other  sponsors,  in  the 
baptism  of  children,  than  the  parents,  when  they  are  living, 
and  qualified  to  present  themselves  in  this  character ;  and, 
secondly,  in  not  requiring,  or  even  admitting  any  sponsors  at 
all  in  cases  of  adult  baptism.  And  we  adopt  this  principle 
and  practice  for  the  following  reasons  : 

1.  There  is  not  a  shadow  of  evidence  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment, that  any  other  sponsors  than  parents  were  ever  admit- 
ted to  answer  for  their  children  in  baptism  in  the  apostolic 
Church ;  nor  is  any  text  of  Scripture  attempted  to  be  adduced 
m  its  support,  by  the  warmest  friends  of  this  practice.  When 
the  jailor  at  Philippi  was  baptized,  "  he  and  all  his  straight- 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  79 

way;"  and  when  Lydia  and  "her  household"  were  baptized, 
we  read  of  no  sponsors  but  the  heads  of  these  families,  whose 
faith  entitled  them  to  present  their  households  to  receive  the 
appropriate  seal  of  faith. 

2.  We  find  no  trace  of  any  other  sponsors  than  parents 
during  the  first  500  years  after  Christ.  When  some  persons, 
in  the  time  of  Augustine,  who  flourished  toward  the  close  of 
the  fourth,  and  the  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  contended 
that  it  was  not  lawful,  in  any  case,  for  any,  excepting  their 
natural  parents  to  ofifer  children  in  baptism,  that  learned  and 
pious  Father  opposed  them,  and  gave  it  as  his  opinion,  that, 
in  extraordinary  cases,  as,  for  example,  when  the  parents  were 
dead ;  when  they  were  not  professing  Christians ;  when  they 
cruelly  forsook  and  exposed  their  offspring ;  and  when  Chris- 
tian masters  had  young  slaves  committed  to  their  charge ;  in 
these  cases,  (and  the  pious  Father  mentions  no  others,)  he 
maintains  that  any  professing  Christians,  who  should  be  will- 
ing to  undertake  the  charge,  might,  with  propriety,  take  such 
children,  offer  them  in  baptism,  and  become  responsible  for 
their  Christian  education.  In  this  principle  and  practice,  all 
intelligent  and  consistent  Presbyterians  are  agTced.  The 
learned  Bingham,  an  Episcopal  divine  of  great  industry  and 
erudition,  seems  to  have  taken  unwearied  pains,  in  his  "Ec- 
clesiastical Antiquities,"  to  collect  every  scrap  of  testimony 
within  his  reach,  in  favour  of  the  early  origin  of  sponsors. 
But  he  utterly  fails  of  producing  even  plausible  evidence  to 
this  amount;  and  at  length  candidly  acknowledges,  that  in 
the  early  ages,  parents  were,  in  all  ordinary  cases,  the  pre- 
senters and  sureties  of  their  own  children ;  and  that  children 
were  presented  by  others  only  in  extraordinary  cases,  such  as 
those  already  stated,  when  their  parents  could  not  present 
them.  It  was  not  until  the  council  of  Mentz,  in  the  ninth 
century,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  forbade  the  appearance  of 
parents  as  sponsors  for  their  own  children,  and  required  this 
service  to  be  surrendered  to  other  hands. 

3.  The  subsequent  history  of  this  practice  marks  the  pro- 
gress of  superstition.  Mention  is  made  by  Cyril,  in  the  fifth 
century,  and  by  Fulgentius,  in  the  sixth,  of  sponsors  in  some 
peculiar  cases  of  adult  baptism.  When  adults,  about  to  be 
baptized,  were  dumb,  or  under  the  power  of  delirium,  through 
disease,  and,  of  course,  unable  to  speak  for  themselves,  or  to 
make  the  usual  profession ;  in  such  cases,  it  was  customary 
for  some  friend,  or  friends,  to  answer  for  them,  and  to  bear 
testimony  to  their  good  character,  and  to  the  fact  of  their  hav- 
ing sufficient  knowledge,  and  having  before  expressed  a  desire 

7* 


80  WORSHIP  OF  THE 

to  be  baptized.  For  this,  there  was,  undoubtedly,  at  least 
some  colour  of  reason ;  and  the  same  thing  might,  perhaps, 
be  done  without  impropriety,  in  some  conceivable  circum- 
stances now.  From  this,  however,  there  was  a  transition 
soon  made  to  the  use  of  sponsors  in  all  cases  of  adult  baptism. 
This  latter,  however,  was  upon  a  different  principle  from  the 
former.  When  adults  had  the  use  of  speech  and  reason,  and 
were  able  to  answer  for  themselves,  the  sponsors  provided  for 
such  never  answered  or  professed  for  them.  This  was  inva- 
riably done  by  the  adult  himself.  Their  only  business,  as  it 
would  appear,  was  to  be  a  kind  of  curators  or  guardians  of  the 
spiritual  life  of  the  persons  baptized.  This  office  was  gene- 
rally fulfilled,  in  each  church,  by  the  Deacons,  when  adult 
males  were  baptized;  and  by  the  Deaconesses,  when  females 
came  forward  to  receive  this  ordinance.  Hence,  in  the  Ro- 
man Catholic,  and  some  Protestant  sects,  the  practice  was  ul- 
timately established  of  providing  god-fathers  and  god-mothers 
in  all  cases  of  adult  baptism. 

4.  Among  the  pious  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  in  the 
middle  ages,  no  other  sponsors  than  parents  were  in  common 
use.  But  where  the  parents  were  dead,  or  absent,  or  unable, 
on  any  account,  to  act,  other  professors  of  religion  who  were 
benevolent  enough  to  undertake  the  charge,  were  allowed  to 
appear  in  their  place,  and  answer  and  act  in  their  stead. 

5.  If,  then,  the  use  of  god-fathers  and  god-mothers,  as  dis- 
tinct from  parents,  in  baptism,  has  no  countenance  in  the  word 
of  God ;  if  it  was  unknown  in  the  Church  during  the  first  500 
years  after  Christ;  and  if  it  was  superstitious  in  its  origin,  and 
connected  with  other  superstitions  in  its  progress ;  we  have, 
undoubtedly,  sufficient  reason  for  rejecting  the  practice. 
When  the  system  is  to  set  aside  parents  in  this  solemn  trans- 
action ;  to  require  others  to  take  their  places,  and  make  en- 
gagements which  they  alone,  for  the  most  part,  are  qualified 
to  make ;  and  when,  in  pursuance  of  this  system,  thousands 
are  daily  making  engagements  which  they  never  think  of  ful- 
filling, and,  in  most  cases,  notoriously  ha^'e  it  not  in  their 
power  to  fulfil,  and,  indeed,  appear  to  feel  no  special  obliga- 
tion to  fulfil,  we  are  constrained  to  regard  it  as  a  human  in- 
vention, altogether  unwarranted,  and  adapted,  on  a  variety  of 
accounts,  to  generate  evil  rather  than  good. 

According  to  one  of  the  canons  of  the  Church  of  England, 
"  Parents  are  not  to  be  urged  to  be  present  when  their  chil- 
dren are  baptized,  nor  to  be  permitted  to  stand  as  sponsors  for 
their  own  children."  That  is,  the  parents,  to  whom  God  and 
nature  have  committed  the  education  of  children ;  in  whose 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  8  I 

families  they  are  to  grew  up ;  under  whose  eye  and  imme- 
diate care  their  principles,  manners,  and  character  are  to  be 
formed,  shall  not  be  allowed  to  take  even  a  part  in  their  dedi- 
cation to  God,  nor  encouraged  even  to  be  present  at  the  solemn 
transaction !  In  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  this  coun- 
try, "  parents  shall  be  admitted  as  sponsors,  if  it  be  desired." 
But  in  both  countries,  it  is  required  that  there  be  sponsors  for 
all  adults,  as  well  as  for  infants. 

Section  IV. — The  Sign  of  the  Cross  in  Baptism. 

This  is  one  of  the  additions  to  the  baptismal  rite  which 
Protestant  Episcopalians  have  adopted  from  the  Romanists, 
and  which  Presbyterians  have  always  rejected.  A  large  body 
of  the  most  pious  and  learned  divines  of  the  established 
Church  of  England,  in  an  early  part  of  the  reign  of  Queen 
Elizabeth,  when  the  Reformation  of  that  Church  was  about 
to  be  conclusively  settled,  earnestly  petitioned  that  the  sign  ot 
the  cross  in  baptism,  as  well  as  stated  fasts  and  festivals,  god- 
fathers and  god-mothers  in  baptism,  kneeling  at  the  Lord's 
Supper,  bowing  at  the  name  of  Jesus,  &c.,  might  be  abolished. 
When  their  petitions  to  this  amount  were  read,  and  their  ar- 
guments heard,  in  the  lower  house  of  Convocation,  the  vote 
was  taken,  and  passed  by  a  majority  of  those  present;  forty- 
three  voting  in  favour  of  granting  the  prayer  of  the  petition- 
ers,—-in  other  words,  in  favour  of  abolishing  the  rites  com- 
plained of,  and  thirty-five  against  it.  But  when  the  proxies 
were  called  for  and  counted,  the  scale  was  turned ;  those  in 
favour  of  the  abolition  being  fifty-eight,  and  those  against  it 
fifty-nine.  So  that,  by  a  solemn  vote  of  the  Convocation,  the 
several  rites  regarded  and  complained  of,  as  Popish  supersti- 
tions, and  the  sign  of  the  cross  among  the  rest,  were  retained 
in  the  Church  only  by  a  majority  of  one. 

In  the  objections  at  that  time  urged  against  the  sign  of  the 
cross  in  baptism,  by  those  learned  and  venerable  Episcopal 
divines,  Presbyterians  have  ever  concurred.  These  objections 
are  the  following : 

1.  Not  the  smallest  countenance  is  to  be  found  in  Scrip- 
ture for  any  such  addition  to  the  baptismal  rite.  Nothing  of 
this  kind  is  pretended  to  be  produced  by  its  most  zealous  ad- 
vocates.    All  acknowledge  it  to  be  a  human  invention. 

2.  In  the  records  of  the  earliest  writers  by  whom  it  is  men- 
tioned, it  appears  associated  with  so  much  superstition  as  can- 
not fail  to  discredit  it  in  the  view  of  all  intelligent  Christians. 
From  the  very  same  sources  from  which  we  gather  the  in 
formation  that,  in  the  second  and  third  centuries,  the  sign  of 


82  WORSHIP  OF  THE 

the  cross  was  added  to  the  rite  of  baptism,  we  also  learn  that 
there  were  added  to  the  same  ordinance  a  number  of  other 
human  inventions — such  as  "  exorcising"  the  candidate  for 
baptism,  to  drive  away  evil  spirits ;  putting  into  his  mouth  a 
mixture  of  milk  and  honey,  as  a  symbol  of  his  childhood  in 
a  new  life  ;  anointing  with  spittle  and  with  oil ,  and  the  lay- 
ing on  of  hands  for  tlie  purpose  of  imparting  the  Holy  Spirit. 
These  are  all  deemed,  by  Protestants,  unwarranted  additions 
to  Christ's  simple  appointment ;  and  in  what  respect  does  the 
sign  of  the  cross  stand  upon  better  ground  ? 

3.  Tertullian,  one  of  the  earhest  writers  in  whom  we  find 
any  mention  made  of  the  sign  of  the  cross  as  a  religious  rite, 
represents  it  as  used  in  his  day  with  a  degree  of  superstition 
scarcely  credible  in  such  an  early  age,  and  which  ought  to 
operate  as  a  permanent  warning  to  all  succeeding  ages. 
"Every  step,"  says  he,  "that  we  take,  when  we  come  in, 
and  when  we  go  out ;  when  we  put  on  our  clothes  or  our 
shoes  ;  when  we  bathe,  eat,  light  up  candles,  go  to  bed,  or  sit 
down, — we  mark  our  foreheads  with  the  sign  of  the  cross. 
If  for  these,  and  other  acts  of  discipline  of  the  same  kind, 
you  demand  a  text  of  Scripture,  you  will  find  none ;  but  tra- 
dition will  be  alleged  as  the  prescriber  of  them."— /)e  Corona. 
cap.  iii.  The  sign  of  the  cross  was  thought,  by  those  deluded 
votaries  of  superstition,  a  sure  preservative  against  all  sorts  ot 
malignity,  poisons,  or  fascination,  and  efiectual  to  drive  away 
evil  spirits.  The  principal  fathers  of  the  fourth  century  affirm 
that  it  was  the  constant  and  undoubted  means  of  working  many 
miracles.  "  This  sign,"  says  Chrysostom,  "both  in  the  days 
of  our  forefathers  and  our  own,  has  thrown  open  gates  that 
were  shut ;  destroyed  the  effect  of  poisonous  drugs ;  disarmed 
the  force  of  hemlock;  and  cured  the  bites  of  venomous 
beasts." — Tom.  vii.  p.  552.  A. 

4.  When  we  consider  the  miserable  superstition  with  which 
the  use  of  the  sign  of  the  cross  is  constantly  marked  by  Ro- 
man Catholics ;  that  they  regard  it  as  essential  to  the  validity 
of  the  ordinance  of  baptism ;  that  they  adore  it ;  that  they 
apply  It  in  every  step  and  act  of  religious  life  ;  that  many  of 
them  consider  no  oath  as  binding  which  is  taken  on  the  Bible 
without  the  figure  of  the  cross  upon  it ;  and  that  they  rely 
upon  it  as  a  kind  of  talisman,  connected  with  every  blessing  ; 
■—surely,  when  we  see  this  degrading  system  of  superstition 
connected  with  this  sign, — acknowledged  on  all  hands  to  be 
a  mere  human  invention, — it  is  no  wonder  that  enlightened 
and  conscientious  Christians  should  feel  constrained  to  lay  it 
aside. 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  83 

Section  V. — We  reject  the  Rite  of  Confirmation. 

In  the  Apostolic  Church,  there  was  no  such  rite  as  that 
which,  under  this  name,  has  been  long  established  in  the 
Romish  communion  as  a  sacrament,  and  adopted  in  some 
Protestant  Churches  as  a  solemnity,  in  their  view,  if  not  com- 
manded, yet  as  both  expressive  and  edifying.  In  giving  the 
views  of  Presbyterians  on  this  subject,  it  is  not  at  all  intended 
to  condemn  those  who  think  proper  to  employ  the  rite  in 
question ;  but  only  to  state  with  brevity  some  of  the  reasons 
why  the  venerated  fathers  of  our  Church  thought  proper  to 
exclude  it  from  our  truly  primitive  and  apostolical  ritual ;  and 
why  their  sons,  to  the  present  hour,  have  persisted  in  the 
same  course. 

1.  We  find  no  warrant  for  this  rite  in  the  word  of  God. 
Indeed,  its  most  intelligent  and  zealous  advocates  do  not  pre- 
tend to  adduce  any  testimony  from  Scripture  in  its  behalf. 

2.  Quite  as  little  support  for  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  purest 
and  best  ages  of  uninspired  antiquity.  Toward  the  close  of 
the  second  century,  indeed,  and  the  beginning  of  the  third, 
among  several  human  additions  to  the  rite  of  baptism  which 
had  crept  into  the  Church — such  as  exorcising  the  infant,  to 
drive  away  evil  spirits — putting  a  mixture  of  milk  and  honey 
into  his  mouth — -anointing  him  with  spittle  and  with  oil,  in  the 
form  of  a  cross  ;  it  became  customary  to  lay  on  hands,  for  the 
purpose  of  imparting  the  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This  lay- 
ing on  of  hands,  however,  was  always  done  immediately  after 
the  application  of  water,  and  always  by  the  same  minister 
who  performed  the  baptism.  Of  course,  every  one  who  was 
authorized  to  baptize,  was  also  authorized  to  lay  on  hands 
upon  the  baptized  individual.  As  this  was  a  mere  human  in- 
vention, so  it  took  the  course  which  human  inventions  are  apt 
to  take.  It  was  modified  as  the  pride  and  the  selfishness  of 
ecclesiastics  prompted.  When  Prelacy  arose,  it  became  cus- 
tomary to  reserve  this  solemn  imposition  of  hands  to  Prelates, 
as  a  part  of  their  official  prerogative.  As  soon  as  convenient 
after  baptism,  the  infant  was  presented  to  the  bishop,  to  re- 
ceive from  him  the  imposition  of  hands,  for  conveying  the 
gift  of  the  Spirit.  Jerome,  in  the  fourth  century,  bears  wit- 
ness, however,  that  this  was  done  rather  for  the  sake  of  hon- 
ouring their  office,  than  in  obedience  to  any  Divine  warrant. 
But,  in  process  of  time,  another  modification  of  the  rite  was 
introduced.  The  imposition  of  the  bishop's  hands  did  not 
take  place  immediately  after  baptism,  nor  even  in  the  infancy 
of  the  baptized  individual,  but  was  postponed  for  a  number  of 


84  WORSHIP  OF  THE 

years,  according  to  circumstances,  and  sometimes  even  till 
adult  age.  Then  the  young  person,  or  ^dult,  was  presented 
with  great  formality  tO  the  bishop  for  his  peculiar  benediction. 
Among  many  proofs  that  this  was  not  the  original  nature  of 
the  rite,  is  the  notorious  fact,  that  throughout  the  whole  Greek 
Church,  at  the  present  time,  the  laying  on  of  hands  is  admi- 
nistered, for  the  most  part,  in  close  connection  with  baptism, 
and  is  dispensed  by  any  priest  who  is  empowered  to  baptize, 
as  was  done  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  before  the 
Greek  Church  was  separated  from  the  Latin.  In  like  man- 
ner, in  the  Lutheran  and  other  German  Churches,  where  a 
sort  of  confirmation  is  retained ;  although  they  have  ecclesias- 
tical superintendents  or  seniors,  the  act  of  laying  on  hands  is 
not  reserved  to  them,  but  is  performed  by  each  pastor  for  the 
children  of  his  parochial  charge. 

3.  The  rite  of  confirmation  is  not  only  altogether  destitute 
of  Divine  warrant,  but  it  is  also  superfluous.  As  it  was  plain- 
ly, at  first,  a  human  invention,  founded  on  the  superstitious 
belief  that,  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  the  special  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  were  to  be  continued  in  the  Church  ;  so  it  is  un- 
necessary. It  answers  no  practical  purpose  which  is  not  pro- 
vided for  quite  as  well,  to  say  the  least,  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  which  rejects  it.  It  is  said  to  be  desirable  that  there 
should  be  some  transaction  or  solemnity  by  which  young  peo- 
ple, who  have  been  baptized  in  their  infancy,  may  be  called 
to  recognize  their  religious  obligations,  and  as  it  were,  to  take 
upon  themselves  the  profession  and  the  vows  made  on  their 
behalf  in  baptism.  Granted.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
such  a  solemnity  is  both  reasonable  in  itself,  and  edifying  in 
its  tendency.  But  have  we  not  just  such  a  solemnity  in  the 
Lord's  Supper;  an  ordinance  divinely  instituted  ;  an  ordinance 
on  which  all  are  qualified  to  attend,  and  ought  to  attend,  who 
are  qualified  to  take  on  themselves,  in  any  scriptural  or  ra- 
tional sense,  their  baptismal  obligations ;  an  ordinance,  in  fact, 
specifically  intended,  among  other  things,  to  answer  this  very 
purpose,  viz.  the  purpose  of  making  a  personal  acknowledg- 
ment and  profession  of  the  truth,  the  service,  and  the  hopes  of 
Christ; — have  we  not  in  the  Sacramental  Suppei  just  such  a 
solemnity  as  we  need  for  the  purpose  in  question  simple,  ra- 
tional, scriptural,  and  to  which  all  our  children  may  come  just 
so  soon  as  they  are  prepared,  in  any  suitable  manner,  to  con- 
fess Christ  before  men  ?  We  do  not  need  confirmation,  then, 
for  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  proposed.  We  liave  some- 
thing better,  because  appointed  of  God ;  quite  as  expressive ; 
more  solemn;  and  free  from  certain  objectionable  features 
which  are  next  to  be  mentioned. 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH,  85 

4.  Finally  ;  we  reject  the  rite  of  confirmation  in  our  Church, 
because,  in  addition  to  all  the  reasons  which  have  been  men- 
tioned, we  consider  the  formulary  prescribed  for  its  adminis- 
tration in  the  Church  of  England,  and  substantially  adopted 
in  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country,  as  liable  to  the  most 
serious  objections.  We  do  not  think  it  a  duty  to  administer, 
in  any  form,  a  rite  which  the  Saviour  never  appointed ;  but 
our  repugnance  is  greatly  increased  by  the  language  in  which 
the  rite  in  question  is  dispensed  by  those  who  employ  it.  In 
the  "  Order  of  Confirmation,"  as  prescribed  and  used  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States,  the  follow- 
ing language  occurs.  Before  the  act  of  laying  on  hands,  the 
officiating  bishop,  in  his  prayer,  repeats  the  following  sen- 
tence :  "  Almighty  and  ever  living  God,  who  hast  vouchsafed 
to  regenerate  these  thy  servants,  by  water,  and  the  Holy 
Ghost,  and  hast  given  unto  them  forgiveness  of  all  their  sins," 
&c.  &c.  And  again,  in  another  prayer  after  the  imposition 
of  hands,  he  speaks  to  the  Searcher  of  hearts  thus:  "We 
make  our  humble  supphcations  unto  thee  for  these  thy  ser- 
vants, upon  whom,  after  the  example  of  thy  holy  Apostles,  we 
have  now  laid  our  hands ;  to  certify  them  by  this  sign  of  thy 
favour  and  gracious  goodness  toward  them,"  (fee.  And  also, 
in  the  act  of  laying  on  hands,  assuming  that  all  who  are  kneel- 
ing before  him  already  have  the  holy  sanctifying  Spirit  of 
Christ,  he  prays  that  they  "may  all  daily  increase  in  this 
Holy  Spirit  more  and  more." 

Such  is  the  language  addressed  to  large  circles  of  young 
people  of  both  sexes,  many  of  whom  there  is  every  reason  to 
fear  are  very  far  from  having  been  "  born  of  the  Spirit,"  in  the 
scriptural  sense  of  that  phrase ;  nay,  some  of  whom  manifest 
so  little  seriousness,  that  any  pastor  of  enlightened  piety 
would  be  pained  to  see  them  at  a  communion  table ;  yet  the 
bishop  pronounces  them  all,  and  he  appeals  to  heaven  for  the 
truth  of  his  sentence — he  pronounces  them  all  regenerate,  not 
only  by  water,  but  also  by  the  Holy  Ghost;  certifies  to  them, 
in  the  name  of  God,  that  they  -are  objects  of  the  divine 
"  favour  ;"  and  declares  that,  being  already  in  a  state  of  grace, 
and  reconciliation  with  God,  they  are  called  to  "  grow  in 
grace,"  and  to  "increase  in  the  Holy  Spirit  more  and  more." 

An  enlightened  Presbyterian  minister  w^ould  consider  him- 
self, if  he  were  to  use  such  language,  to  such  a  circle,  as  en- 
couraging radical  misapprehensions  of  the  nature  of  true  reli- 
gion ;  as  perverting  the  doctrine  of  regeneration  by  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  and  as  speaking  a  language  adapted  fatally  to  deceive 
the  souls  of  those  whom  he  addressed.     Surely,  with  such 


86  WORSHIP  OF  THE 

views,  we  should  be  highly  criminal  were  we  to  adopt  such  a 
rite,  and  dispense  it  after  such  an  example. 

Section  VI. — We  reject  Kneeling  at  the  Lord's  Supper, 

This  is  another  part  of  the  Romish  rituals,  which  a  large 
body  of  the  most  pious  and  learned  divines  of  the  Church  of 
England,  at  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  were  earnestly  de- 
sirous of  having  laid  aside ;  but  they  were  overruled  by  the 
Queen,  and  the  court  clergy,  who  chose  to  retain  it ;  and  it 
has  ever  since  found  a  place  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  It  is  well  known,  that  Presbyterians  differ,  in  this 
respect,  from  their  Episcopal  neighbours.  They  prefer  what 
has  been  commonly  called  "the  table  posture,"  for  such  rea- 
sons as  the  following  : 

1.  It  is  granted,  on  all  hands,  that  the  posture  in  which  the 
Lord's  Supper  was  first  administered  by  the  Saviour  himself, 
was  that  in  which  it  was  customary  to  receive  ordinary  meals. 
It  is  not  known  that  any  one  denies  or  doubts  this.  The 
Evangelists  are  too  explicit  in  their  statement  of  this  fact  to 
admit  of  doubt.  The  Evangelist  Matthew  declares ;  "  Now 
when  the  evening  was  come,  he  sat  down  with  the  twelve. 
And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed  it, 
and  brake  it,  and  gave  it  to  his  disciples,"  &lc.  But  if  the 
Saviour  himself  chose  this  posture,  as  most  agreeable  to  his 
will,  may  we  not  conclude,  that  it  is,  on  the  whole,  the  wisest 
and  best? 

2.  It  is  very  certain  that  kneeling  at  the  Lord's  table  was 
unknown  in  the  Christian  Church  for  a  number  of  centuries 
after  the  apostoUc  age.  Indeed,  in  the  second,  third,  and  fol- 
lowing centuries,  it  was  accounted  unlawful  even  to  kneel  on 
the  Lord's  day ;  this  posture  being  reserved  for  days  of  fast- 
ing and  humiliation.  This  is  asserted  by  TertuUian ;  and  the 
Council  of  Nice  passed  a  solemn  decree  to  the  same  amount, 
because  on  that  day  is  celebrated  the  joyful  remembrance  of 
our  Lord's  resurrection.  This  posture,  both  of  public  prayer 
on  the  Lord's  day,  and  of  receiving  the  communion,  was  in- 
variably standing.  The  proof  of  this  is  so  complete  as  to  pre- 
clude the  possibility  of  doubt.  The  most  ardent  friends  of 
kneeling  do  not  pretend,  so  far  as  is  now  recollected,  to  find 
any  example  of  this  posture,  in  the  whole  history  of  the 
Church,  prior  to  the  thirteenth  century.  That  is,  not  until 
the  Papacy  had  reached  the  summit  of  its  system  of  corrup- 
tion. And,  accordingly,  in  the  Greek  Church,  which  sepa- 
rated from  the  Latin,  before  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation 
arose,  kneeling  at  the  communion  is  unknown.     In  short, 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  87 

kneeling  at  the  Lord's  table  was  not  introduced  until  Tran- 
substantiation  arose;  and  witli  Transubstantiation  it  ought, 
by  Protestants,  to  have  been  laid  aside.  When  men  began 
to  believe  that  the  sacramental  elements  were  really  trans- 
muted into  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Redeemer,  there  was 
some  colour  of  apology  for  kneeling  and  adoring  them.  But 
when  this  error  was  abandoned,  that  which  had  grown  out  of 
it  ought  to  have  been  abandoned  also. 

The  essential  nature  of  the  Eucharist  renders  the  attend- 
ance upon  it  in  a  kneeling  posture  incongruous,  and,  of  course, 
unsuitable.  This  ordinance  is  a  feast,  a  feast  of  love,  joy, 
and  thanksgiving.  The  very  name,  Eucharist,  implies  as 
much.  It  is  intended  to  be  a  sign  of  love,  confidence,  and 
affectionate  fellowship,  between  each  communicant  and  the 
master  of  the  feast,  and  between  all  the  members  of  his  body. 
It  is  also  intended  to  be  an  emblem,  and  a  means  of  that  spi- 
ritual nourishment  which  is  found  in  feeding  by  faith,  and,  in 
a  spiritual  sense,  on  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Redeemer,  set 
forth  in  this  ordinance  as  crucified  for  us.  Now,  it  has  been 
often  asked — "  In  what  nation  is  it  thought  suitable  to  kneel 
at  banquets  ?"  Where  do  men  eat  and  drink  upon  their  ki^^es  ? 
True,  indeed,  humility  and  penitence  become  us  in  every  ap- 
proach to  God;  and  certainly  in  no  case  more  peculiarly  than 
when  we  celebrate  the  wonders  of  grace  and  love  manifested 
in  the  Saviour's  dying  for  us.  Yet  it  is  equally  true,  that,  as 
the  ordinance  is,  characteristically,  a  feast  of  confidence,  fel- 
lowship, joy,  and  thanksgiving,  so  the  exercises  and  the  pos- 
ture most  becoming  the  attendance  on  it,  are  those  which  in- 
dicate gladness,  gratitude,  and  affectionate  intercourse.  He 
must  be  strangely  prejudiced  in  favour  of  a  superstitious  pre- 
cedent, who  can  persuade  himself  that  kneeling  is  the  most 
suitable  expression  of  those  exercises. 

4.  Finally ;  the  abuse  and  the  misapprehension  of  the  prac 
tice  of  kneeling  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  are  considerations  of  no 
small  weight  in  the  minds  of  those  who  reject  this  practice 
As  it  originated  in  gross  error,  so  it  is  adapted  to  nourish  er 
ror  and  superstition ;  and  however  understood  by  intelHgent 
Christians,  it  has  been  misapprehended,  and  will  be,  as  long 
as  it  shall  be  used,  misapprehended  by  many  ignorant  minds 
Accordingly,  as  before  stated,  when  the  English  Liturgy  was 
revised,  and  about  to  be  ultimately  settled,  in  the  reign  of 
Queen  Elizabeth,  some  of  the  most  pious  and  learned  divines 
of  that  Church  entreated  that  kneeling  at  the  Eucharist  might 
either  be  abolished  altogether,  or,  at  least,  left  optional  or  in- 
different.    When  the  divines,  appointed  to  report  on  the  sub- 

8 


88  WORSHIi  OF  THE 

ject,  brought  in  a  report  which  left  it  indifferent,  the  Queen 
drew  her  pen  over  the  Knes  which  represented  it,  and  made 
the  practice  binding.  And  all  that  the  friends  of  abolishing 
the  practice  could  obtain,  was  a  rubric,  or  marginal  advertise- 
ment, declaring  that  by  communing  in  this  posture,  no  wor- 
ship of  the  elements  was  intended.  This  obstinate  adherence 
to  the  practice  in  question,  greatly  grieved  the  foreign  Pro- 
testants, and  the  learned  Beza  wTOte  to  Archbishop  Grindal 
on  the  subject,  in  a  style  of  respectful,  but  firm  remonstrance. 
"If,"  says  Beza,  "you  have  rejected  the  doctrine  of  Tran- 
substantiation,  and  the  practice  of  adoring  the  host,  why  do 
you  symbolize  with  Popery,  and  seem  to  hold  both  by  kneel- 
ing at  the  Sacrament  ?  Kneeling  had  never  been  thought  of 
had  it  not  been  for  Transubstantiation."  The  archbishop  re- 
plied, "  That  though  the  Sacrament  was  to  be  received  kneel- 
ing, yet  the  rubric  accompanied  the  service-book,  and  informed 
the  people  that  no  adoration  of  the  elements  was  intended." 
"O!  I  understand  you,"  said  Beza;  "there  was  a  certain 
great  lord  who  repaired  his  house,  and  having  finished  it,  left 
before  his  gate  a  great  stone,  for  which  he  had  no  occasion. 
This  stone  caused  many  people  in  the  dark  to  stumble  and  fall. 
Complaint  was  made  to  his  lordship,  and  many  an  humble 
petition  was  presented,  praying  for  the  removal  of  the  stone ; 
but  he  remained  long  obstinate.  At  length  he  condescended 
to  order  a  larithorn  to  be  hung  over  it.  '  My  lord,'  said  one, 
'  if  you  would  be  pleased  to  rid  yourself  of  further  solicitation, 
and  to  quiet  all  parties,  order  the  stone  and  the  candle  to  be 
both  removed.'  " 

Section  VII. — TVe  do  not  Mniinisfer  the  Lord^s  Supper  in 
Private. 

Few  ordinances  have  been  more  misapprehended  and  per- 
verted than  the  Lord's  Supper.  Before  the  close  of  the  third 
century,  superstitious  views  of  its  efficacy,  and  its  necessity 
to  salvation,  began  to  be  adopted,  and  led  to  a  corresponding 
practice.  Entirely  mistaking  the  meaning  of  John  vi.  53, 
many  Christians  of  that  day  supposed  that  no  one  could  die 
safely  without  having  participated  of  this  ordinance.  Accord- 
ingly, it  was  not  only  administered  to  all  adult  persons,  w^ho 
professed  to  be  the  disciples  of  Christ ;  but  also  to  infants, 
soon  after  their  baptism.  Nay,  to  such  an  extravagant  height 
was  this  phrensy  of  superstition  carried,  that  when  any  one 
had  died  suddenly,  without  having  partaken  of  this  sacrament, 
the  consecrated  elements  were,  in  many  instances,  thrust  into 
the  mouth  of  the  lifeless  corpse,  in  hope  that  it  might  yet  not 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  89 

be  too  late  to  impart  a  saving  benefit  to  the  deceased.  This 
delusion  soon  produced,  or  rather  strongly  implied  the  Popish 
doctrine,  that  this  sacrament,  as  well  as  baptism,  carried  with 
it  an  inherent  efficacy,  (an  opus  operatum,  as  they  expressed 
it,)  which  insured  a  saving  operation  in  all  cases  in  which  it 
was  regularly  administered.  From  this,  the  transition  was 
easy  to  the  notion,  that  the  consecrated  elements,  when  exhi- 
bited, cured  diseases,  and  accomplished  many  other  wonder- 
ful miracles.  Hence,  these  elements,  before  the  commence- 
ment of  the  third  century,  after  being  dispensed  in  the  public 
assembly,  were  sent,  generally  by  deacons,  to  those  who,  on 
any  account,  were  absent.  Not  long  afterwards,  the  sick,  the 
dying,  and  those  who  were  confined,  on  any  account,  to  their 
dwelling,  had  a  portion  of  the  elements  despatched  to  them, 
either  by  ecclesiastics,  or,  if  more  convenient,  by  the  hands 
of  laymen,  and  even  children.  Some,  on  receiving  the  ele- 
ments in  church,  contrived  to  carry  away  with  them  a  portion, 
and  were  in  the  habit  of  taking  a  small  part  of  this  portion 
every  day,  for  thirty  or  forty  days  together.  Nay,  some  car- 
ried a  portion  of  the  sacrament  (as  they  expressed  it,)  with 
them  on  long  journies  and  voyages  ;  had  recourse  to  it  as  a 
defence  in  cases  of  danger ;  and  inserted  some  portion  of  it  in 
plaisters  for  healing  wounds  and  ulcers.  All  this  under  the 
impression  that  these  sacramental  elements  had  an  inherent 
energy  of  the  most  potent  and  beneficial  kind.  No  wonder, 
that  wherever  these  sentiments  prevailed,  private  communion, 
if  such  an  expression  may  be  allowed,  was  universal.  The 
sacrament,  in  a  great  measure,  lost  its  character  as  a  social 
ordinance ;  and  the  symbols  of  the  Redeemer's  broken  body 
and  shed  blood  were  considered  as  invested  with  a  sort  of 
magical  influence,  wherever  they  appeared;  to  be  carried 
about  the  person  as  an  amulet,  for  defence ;  and  resorted  to  as 
a  medicine  of  sovereign  power. 

It  is  true,  some  of  these  views  and  habits  were  checked  by 
the  rise  of  the  doctrine  of  Transubstantiation.  When  the  ele- 
ments were  believed,  by  the  consecrating  prayer,  to  have 
been  transmuted  into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  it  was 
thought  indecent  to  carry  them  home,  to  deposit  them  in  a 
chest  or  cupboard,  and  to  swallow  a  small  portion  every  day. 
Still  the  most  humiliating  superstitions,  as  to  the  consecrated 
elements,  continued  to  prevail. 

When  the  Reformation  took  place  in  the  land  of  our  fathers, 
many  of  these  views  and  habits,  and  especially  the  more  gross 
of  them,  were  happily  corrected.  Still  it  is  to  be  lamented, 
that  the  Reformation  in  the  Church  of  England,  m  respect  to 


90  WORSHIP  OF  THE 

this  ordinance,  as  well  as  some  others,  was  not  more  thorough ; 
and  that  after  all  the  remonstrances  and  importunity  of  the 
most  venerable  and  pious  divines  of  that  Church,  a  number  ol 
things  were  left  in  use,  which  it  were  to  be  wished  had  been 
laid  aside.     Of  these  the  habit  of  private  communion  is  one. 

The  Eucharist  is  administered,  by  the  clergy  of  that  Church, 
every  day,  to  the  sick  and  the  dying,  with  scarcely  any  scru- 
ple, whenever  it  is  requested.  To  the  worldly,  the  careless, 
and  even  the  most  profligate,  it  is  freely  carried,  when  they 
come  to  die,  if  they  desire  it ;  indeed,  some  have  supposed 
that  any  minister  who  should  publicly  refuse  to  administer 
this  ordinance  to  a  sick  person,  when  requested,  would  be 
liable,  in  that  country,  to  a  civil  prosecution.  Suffice  it  to 
say,  that  such  a  refusal  is  very  seldom  given.  Even  crimi- 
nals of  the  most  profligate  character,  just  before  their  execu- 
tion, always  have  this  sacrament  administered  to  them,  if  they 
are  willing  to  receive  it,  and  that  when  no  appearance  what- 
ever of  genuine  penitence  is  manifested.* 

Presbyterian  ministers,  in  all  ordinary  cases,  decline  ad- 
ministering the  Lord's  Supper  to  the  sick  and  the  dying,  and 
generally  in  private  houses,  for  reasons  which  appear  to  them 
conclusive.     They  are  such  as  these : 

1 .  They  consider  this  ordinance  as  social  and  ecclesiastical 
in  its  very  nature.  It  is  a  communion,  in  which  the  idea  of  a 
*'  solitary  mass,"  as  admitted  among  Papists,  would  seem  to 
be  an  absurdity. 

2.  We  find  no  warrant  for  private  communion  in  the  New 
Testament.  It  is  true,  we  read  of  Christians,  in  the  apos- 
tolic age,  "breaking  bread  from  house  to  house  ;"  but  that  is, 
evidently,  a  mode  of  expressing  their  ordinary  worshipping 
assemblies.  They  had  no  ecclesiastical  buildings.  They 
worshipped  altogether  in  private  houses,  in  "  upper  cham- 
bers," &c.  There,  of  course,  they  administered  the  commu- 
nion to  as  many  as  could  come  together.  And,  as  they  could 
not  occupy  the  same  apartment  statedly,  or,  at  any  rate,  long 
together,  on  account  of  the  vigilance  of  their  persecutors,  they 
went  "  from  house  to  house"  to  worship,  as  circumstances 
invited ;  or  in  a  number  of  houses  at  the  same  time,  where 
Christians  were  too  numerous  for  a  single  dwelling.  We 
read  of  no  instance  of  the  sacramental  symbols  being  carried 
to  an  individual  on  a  sick  bed.  On  the  contrary,  when  the 
in&pired  Apostle  gives  directions  that  the  sick  be  visited  and 

•  See  the  cases  of  the  hardened  Despard  and  Bellingham,  mentioned 
in  the  Christian  Observer,  vol.  xiii.  p.  6. 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  91 

prayed  with  by  the  "  Elders  of  the  Church,"  James  v.  14, 
he  says  not  a  word  of  administering  to  them  the  commmiion. 

3.  If  persons,  on  their  dying  beds,  earnestly  desire  this  or- 
dinance to  be  administered  to  them,  as  a  viaticum,  or  prepa- 
ration for  death,  and  as  a  kind  of  pledge  of  the  divine  favour 
and  acceptance,  we  believe  that,  on  this  very  account,  it  ought 
to  be  refused  them.  To  comply  with  their  wishes,  at  least 
in  many  cases,  is  to  encourage  them  to  rely  on  the  power  of 
an  external  sign,  rather  than  on  the  merit  of  the  Saviour  him- 
self. Such  views  being,  manifestly,  unscriptural,  false,  and 
adapted  to  deceive  and  destroy  the  soul,  ought  by  no  means  to 
be  countenanced.  But  what  can  tend  more  directly  to  favour, 
and  even  nurture  these  views,  than  to  hasten  with  the  sacra- 
mental memorials  to  the  bed-side  of  every  dying  person  who 
desires  them  ?  Ought  the  evident  propensity  of  careless  and 
ungodly  men  to  fly  to  this  ordinance  as  the  last  refuge  of  a 
guilty  conscience,  to  be  deliberately  promoted  by  the  minis- 
ters of  religion  ? 

4.  If  this  practice  be  once  begun,/ where  is  it  to  end  ?  All 
men  are  serious  when  they  come  to  die.  Even  the  most  pro- 
fane and  licentious,  in  that  crisis,  are  commonly  in  no  small 
degree  anxious  and  alarmed,  and  disposed  to  lay  hold  of  every 
thing  that  seems  favourable  to  the  smallest  hope.  Yet  every 
wise  man,  who  has  lived  long,  and  observed  much,  is  deeply 
suspicious  of  the  sincerity  of  death-bed  penitents.  What  is  a 
conscientious  minister  to  do  in  such  cases  ?  How  is  he  to 
draw  the  line  between  those  who  are,  and  those  who  are  not, 
in  his  judgment,  fit  subjects  for  this  ordinance  ?  Is  it  not  un- 
seasonable, as  well  as  distressing  to  have  any  thing  like  ar- 
guing or  disputing  with  the  sick  and  the  dying  on  such  a 
subject  ?  On  the  one  hand,  if  we  faithfully  refuse  to  adminis- 
ter the  ordinance  where  the  dying  man  gives  no  evidence  of 
either  knowledge  or  faith — shall  we  not  agitate  the  patient, 
distress  his  friends,  and  give  against  him  a  kind  of  public 
sentence,  so  far  as  our  judgment  goes,  of  his  reprobation  ? 
And,  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  strain  conscience,  and,  in  com- 
pliance with  earnest  wishes,  administer  the  ordinance  to  those 
who  give  no  evidence  whatever  of  fitness  for  it — shall  we  not 
run  the  risk  of  deceiving  and  destroying  souls,  by  lulling  them 
asleep  in  sin,  and  encouraging  reliance  on  an  external  sign  of 
grace  ?  Will  not  by-standers  be  likely  to  be  fatally  injured  ? 
And  shall  we  not,  by  every  such  act,  incur  great  guilt  in  the 
sight  of  God  ? 

5.  By  declining,  in  all  ordinary  cases,  to  administer  this 
ordinance  on  sick  beds,  either  to  saints  or  sinners,  we  avoid 
8* 


92  WORSHIP  OF  THE 

these  embarrassments  so  deep  and  trying  to  a  conscientious 
man.  We  avoid  multiplied  evils,  both  to  the  dying  them- 
selves, and  their  surviving  friends.  And  we  shall  take  a 
course  better  adapted  than  any  other  to  impress  upon  the  minds 
of  men  that  great  and  vital  truth,  that  the  atoning  sacrifice  and 
perfect  righteousness  of  the  Redeemer,  imputed  to  us,  and  re- 
ceived by  faith  alone,  are  the  only  scriptural  foundation  of 
hope  toward  God : — that,  without  this  faith,  ordinances  are 
jnavailing ;  and  with  it,  though  we  may  be  deprived,  by  the 
providence  of  God,  of  an  opportunity  of  attending  on  outward 
ordinances  in  their  prescribed  order  of  administration,  all  is 
safe,  for  time  and  eternity.  The  more  solemnly  and  unceas- 
ingly these  sentiments  are  inculcated,  the  more  we  shall  be 
likely  to  benefit  the  souls  of  men ;  and  the  more  frequently 
we  countenance  any  practice  which  seems  to  encourage  a  re- 
liance on  any  external  rite  as  a  refuge  in  the  hour  of  death, 
we  contribute  to  the  prevalence  of  a  system  most  unscriptural, 
deceptive,  and  fatal  in  its  tendency. 

It  was  remarked,  that  Presbyterians  take  this  ground,  and 
act  upon  these  principles  in  all  ordinary  cases.  It  has  some- 
times happened,  however,  that  a  devout  and  exemplary  com- 
municant of  our  Church,  after  long  enjoying  the  privileges  ot 
the  sanctuary,  has  been  confined  for  several,  perhaps  for  many 
years,  to  a  bed  of  sickness,  and  been,  of  course,  wholly  una- 
ble to  enjoy  a  communion  season  in  the  ordinary  form.  In 
such  cases,  Presbyterian  ministers  have  sometimes  taken  the 
Elders  of  the  Church  with  them,  and  also  invited  half  a  dozen 
other  friends  of  the  sick  person — thus  making,  in  reality,  a 
"church,"  meeting  by  its  representatives — and  administered 
the  communion  in  the  sick  chamber.  To  this  no  solid  objec- 
tion is  perceived.  But  the  moment  we  t)pen  the  door — un- 
less in  very  extraordinary  cases  indeed — to  the  practice  of 
carrying  this  sacrament  to  those  who  have  wholly  neglected 
it  during  their  lives,  but  importimately  call  for  it  as  a  passport 
to  heaven,  in  the  hour  of  nature's  extremity;  we  countenance 
superstition ;  we  deceive  souls ;  and  we  pave  the  way  for 
abuses  and  temptations,  of  which  no  one  can  calculate  the 
consequences,  or  see  the  end. 

Section  VIII. — We  reject  bowing  at  the  name  of  Jesus, 

Those  who  have  frequently  witnessed  the  worship  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  have  no  doubt  observed,  that 
when  the  name  Jesus  occurs,  in  repeating  the  Apostle's 
Creed,  there  is  a  sensible  obeisance,  or  bowing  of  the  knee, 
which  occurs  in  pronouncing  no  other  name  in  the  public  ser- 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  93 

vice.  This  obeisance  is,  in  many  cases,  confined  to  the 
pronunciation  of  the  name  as  it  occurs  in  the  Creed.  The 
same  name  may  be  pronounced  in  the  other  parts  of  the  Litur- 
gy, or  in  the  sermon,  without  being  accompanied  with  any 
such  act  of  reverence.  Presbyterians  have  never  adopted  this 
practice,  for  the  following  reasons : 

1.  We  find  no  semblance  of  a  warrant  for  it  in  Scripture. 
Some  Episcopal  apologists,  indeed,  for  this  practice,  of  the 
inferior  and  less  intelligent  class,  have  cited  in  its  defence 
Philippians  ii.  10 ;  but  this  plea  has  been  abandoned,  it  is  be- 
lieved, by  all  truly  learned  and  judicious  friends  of  that  deno- 
mination. Dr.  Nichols,  one  of  the  most  able  and  zealous 
advocates  of  the  ritual  of  the  Church  of  England,  expressly 
says — "  We  are  not  so  dull  as  to  think  that  these  words  can 
be  rigorously  applied  to  this  purpose." 

2.  It  seems  unaccountable  that  the  obeisance  in  question 
should  be  so  pointedly  made  at  this  name  of  the  Saviour,  and 
not  at  all  when  his  other  titles  are  pronounced.  When  his 
titles  of  God,  Redeemer,  Saviour,  Christ,  Immanuel,  and  even 
Jehovah,  are  pronounced,  no  such  testimonial  of  reverence  is 
manifested.  Can  any  good  reason,  either  in  the  Bible  or  out 
of  it,  be  assigned  for  this  difference?  We  feel  as  if,  with  our 
views  of  the  subject,  it  would  be  superstition  in  us  to  adopt 
or  countenance  such  a  practice. 

3.  Is  not  the  habit  of  such  observances,  without  warrant, 
and,  as  would  seem,  without  reason,  plainly  adapted  to  beget 
a  spirit  of  superstition,  and  to  occupy  our  minds  with  the 
commandments  of  men,  rather  than  with  the  ordinances  of 
Heaven?  It  will,  perhaps,  be  said  in  reply,  that  we  surely 
cannot  pronounce  the  name  of  Jesus,  our  adorable  Saviour, 
with  too  much  reverence ;  why,  then,  find  fault  with  an  act 
of  obeisance  at  his  glorious  name  ?  True  ;  every  possible 
degree  of  reverence  is  his  due.  But  why  not  manifest  the 
same  at  the  pronunciation  of  all  his  adorable  and  official  names  ? 
Suppose  any  one  were  to  single  out  a  particular  verse  of  Holy 
Scripture,  and  whenever  he  read  that  verse  were  to  bow  his 
head,  or  bend  his  knees,  in  token  of  reverence  ;  but  wholly 
to  omit  this  act  of  obeisance  in  reading  all  other  parts  of 
Scripture,  even  those  of  exactly  the  same  import  as  the  verse 
thus  distinguished  ?  ShouW  we  not  consider  his  conduct  as 
an  example  of  strange  caprice,  or  of  still  more  strange  super- 
stition ?  Such,  however,  precisely,  is  the  case  before  us. 
And  if  this  mode  of  reading  the  Scriptures  were  enjoined  by 
ecclesiastical  authority,  we  should,  doubtless,  consider  it  as 
still  more  strange.     Even  this,  however,  is  done  in  the  case 


94  WORSHIP  OF   THE 

now  under  consideration.  For  the  eighteenth  canon  of  the 
Church  of  England  contains  the  following  injunction: — 
"  When  in  the  time  of  divine  service  the  Lord  Jesus  shall  be 
mentioned,  due  and  lowly  reverence  shall  be  done  by  all  per- 
sons present,  as  it  hath  been  accustomed." 

This  practice  of  bowing  at  the  name  of  Jesus,  was  never 
heard  of  in  the  Christian  Church,  so  far  as  is  now  recollected, 
until  ihe  fifteenth  century.  Some  trace  it  to  the  Papal  reign 
of  Gregory  X.,  in  the  thirteenth  century.  It  may  possibly 
have  existed  then  ;  but  the  earliest  authoritative  injunction  of 
it  that  is  remembered,  is  that  of  the  council  of  Basil,  in  1435. 
The  deplorable  state  of  the  Church  at  that  time,  both  in  re- 
spect to  superstition  and  profligacy,  will  not  furnish,  it  is  pre- 
sumed, a  very  strong  recommendation  of  a  rite  which  then 
took  its  rise.     A  more  worthy  origin  of  it  is  unknown. 

As  to  the  practice  of  praying  toward  the  east,  and  that  of 
wearing  in  the  reading  desk,  or  during  the  prayers,  a  white 
surplice,  they  are  too  inconsiderable  to  be  made  the  subjects 
of  particular  discussion.  Nevertheless,  as  this  manual  is  in- 
tended to  give  a  comprehensive  view  of  the  points  in  which 
we  differ  from  surrounding  denominations,  it  may  not  be 
amiss  to  say,  in  passing,  that  both  the  practices  last  mentioned 
were  borrowed  from  the  Pagans.  And  although  plausible 
reasons  soon  began  to  be  urged  in  their  favour ;  reasons  which 
were  made  to  wear  a  Christian  aspect,  yet  their  heathen  ori- 
gin is  unquestionable.  True,  there  is  no  sin  in  them.  They 
are  little  things ;  too  little  to  be  formally  animadverted  upon. 
Yet  they  are  among  the  things  which  we  think  it  our  duty  to 
reject.  And  when  asked,  as  Ave  sometimes  are,  why  we  do 
not  adopt  them  1  we  have  only  to  say,  that  our  desire  is  to 
keep  as  closely  as  we  can  to  "  the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ;" 
that  to  indulge  superstition  in  trivial  things,  is  as  really  cen- 
surable, in  principle,  as  in  things  of  more  importance ;  and 
that  "  the  beginning  of  evil  is  like  the  letting  out  of  water." 
And  especially  when  we  recollect,  that  three  centuries  have 
not  elapsed,  since  some  of  these  very  things  were  made  terms 
of  communion  in  the  land  of  our  fathers ;  and  some  of  the 
most  pious  and  venerable  men  that  ever  lived  in  that  land, 
were  fined,  imprisoned,  and  ejected  from  office,  because,  ac- 
cording to  the  popular  language  of  that  day,  they  "  scrupled 
the  habits,"  or  the  prescribed  dress,  we  shall  see  the  evil  of 
tampering  with  uncommanded  rites. 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  95 

Section  IX. — We  reject  the  reading  of  Apocryphal  Books 
in  public  worship. 

The  Church  of  Rome  considers  a  number  of  the  books  of 
the  Apocrypha  as  canonical ;  that  is,  as  belonging  to  the  in- 
spired canon,  and  as  of  equal  authority  with  any  of  the  booKs 
of  the  Old  or  New  Testament ;  and  accordingly  orders  them 
to  be  read  in  her  public  asserabhes,  just  as  the  inspired  Scrip- 
tures. Protestants,  with  one  voice,  deny  that  the  Apocry- 
phal books  make  any  part  of  the  sacred  canon,  or  form  any 
part  of  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

In  the  Church  of  England,  however,  large  portions  of  the 
Apocryphal  books  are  read  in  her  public  assembhes,  and  ap- 
pealed to  as  if  they  were  canonical  books.  It  is  true,  the 
Church,  in  her  sixth  article,  declares  that  these  books  are  not 
appealed  to  as  any  part  of  the  rule  of  faith ;  and  they  are 
not  read  on  Sundays.  But  on  holy-days  they  are  read  con- 
tinually. 

The  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country  has  adopted  the 
same  practice,  under  the  same  restrictions. 

Presbyterians  object  to  this  practice,  and  refuse  to  adopt  it 
for  the  following  reasons. 

1.  Because  they  are  persuaded  that  nothing  ought  to  be 
read  under  the  name  of  Holy  Scripture,  but  that  which  is  re- 
garded as  the  inspired  word  of  God.  To  do  this,  is  to  depart 
from  an  important  Protestant  principle,  and  open  the  door  for 
endless  abuse. 

2.  Because  those  Apocryphal  books,  out  of  which  the  les- 
sons referred  to  are  taken,  evidently  contain  some  false  doc- 
trines, some  misstatements,  and  not  a  few  things  adapted  to 
promote  ridicule  rather  than  edification. 

3.  Notwithstanding,  in  the  6th  Article  of  the  Church  of 
England,  it  is  expressly  stated,  that  these  Apocryphal  books 
are  not  read  as  any  part  of  the  rule  of  faith,  still  in  her 
Homihes  they  are  spoken  of  in  language  of  a  very  different 
aspect.  Baruch  is  cited  as  the  Prophet  Baruch,  and  his 
writing  is  called  the  word  of  the  Lord  to  the  Jews.  The 
Book  of  Tobit  is  expressly  ascribed  to  the  Holy  Ghost,  in 
the  most  unequivocal  terms,  as  follows :  "  The  same  lesson 
doth  the  Holy  Ghost  also  teach  in  sundry  places  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, saying ;  mercifulness  and  almsgiving  purge th  from  all 
sins,  and  delivereth  from  death,  and  suffereth  not  the  soul  to 
come  into  darkness,"  &c.  (See  Homily  against  Disobedience 
and  Wilful  Rebellion,  part  i.  p.  475  ;  and  Homily  on  Alms- 
deeds,  part  ii.  p.  328.)     Surely,  if  "  the  Holy  Ghost  teach- 


96  WORSHIP  OF  THE 

eth"  what  is  written  in  tliis  book,  it  is  an  inspired  book,  and 
ought  to  be  considered  as  a  part  of  "  the  rule  of  faith."  It  is 
worthy  of  notice  here,  that  the  Article  and  Homilies  here 
quoted,  make  a  part  of  the  formularies  of  the  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States,  as  well  as  in  that  of  England. 

4.  The  practice  of  reading  these  lessons  in  public  worship, 
from  writings  acknowledged  not  to  be  canonical,  and  from 
writings  which  contain  much  exceptionable  matter,  was  early 
j>rotested  against  by  many  of  the  most  learned  and  pious  dig- 
nitaries, and  other  divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  has 
been,  at  different  times,  ever  since,  matter  of  regret  and  com- 
plaint among  the  most  valuable  members  of  that  body;  but  in 
spite  of  these  remonstrances  and  petitions,  it  has  been  main- 
tained to  the  present  day.  This  fact  shows,  in  a  strong  light, 
the  mischief  of  commencing  an  erroneous  practice  :  and  how 
difficult  it  is  to  get  rid  of  any  thing  of  this  kind,  when  it  is 
able  to  plead  established  custom  in  its  support. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

CONCLUSION. 

Such  are  the  considerations  which  satisfy  Presbyterians 
that  their  Doctrine,  their  Ecclesiastical  Order,  and  their  Wor- 
ship, are  truly  primitive  and  scriptural.  We  condemn  not 
our  neighbours.  To  their  own  Master  they  stand  or  fall. 
Our  only  object,  in  what  has  been  said,  is  to  "  render  a  rea- 
son" for  our  own  belief  and  practice.  The  names  of  other 
denominations  would  not  have  been  so  much  as  mentioned, 
or  alluded  to,  in  the  foregoing  statements,  had  it  been  possi- 
ble, without  doing  so,  to  exhibit  our  own  peculiarities,  and  to 
show  wherein  and  why  we  differ  from  some  of  our  sister 
churches.  But  firmly  believing  that  all  the  leading  features 
ftf  the  Presbyterian  system  are  more  in  accordance  with  the 
word  of  God,  and  with  the  usage  of  the  purest  and  best  ages 
of  the  Christian  Church,  than  any  other,  we  feel  bound  to 
.naintain  them ;  to  teach  them  to  our  childi  en,  and  to  bear 
.estimony  in  their  favour  before  the  world.  We  deny  to  none, 
ivho  hold  fast  the  essentials  of  our  holy  religioi">,  the  name  ot 
Christian  Churches.  It  is  enough  for  us  to  know  that  we 
adhere  to  "the  simplicity  that  is  in  Christ;"  that  we  walk 
in  the  footsteps  of  the  primitive  Christians.  We  forbid  none 
who  profess  to  cast  out  devils,  "  because  they  follow  not  with 


PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH.  97 

US."  Let  them  do  all  the  good  they  can  in  their  own  way. 
We  claim  the  same  privilege  ;  and  only  beg  to  be  permitted, 
with  the  Bible  in  our  hands,  to  ascertain  "what  saith  the 
Scripture;"  and  how  Apostles  and  martyrs  glorified  God. 
We  "  call  no  man  master ;  one  is  our  Master,  even  Christ." 
And,  therefore,  throughout  the  foregoing  pages,  our  primary 
appeal  has  been  to  his  Word,  the  great  statute  book  of  his 
kingdom.  However  plausible  in  theory,  or  attractive  in  prac- 
tice, any  rite  or  ceremony  may  appear,  we  dare  not  adopt  it, 
unless  we  find  some  warrant  for  it  in  the  only  infallible  guide 
of  the  Church.  If,  then,  Presbyterianism,  in  all  its  essential 
features,' is  plainly  found  in  the  word  of  God;  if  it  maintains, 
throughout,  the  great  representative  principle  which  pervades 
the  kingdom  of  God ;  if  it  guards  more  perfectly  than  any 
other  system,  against  clerical  assumption  and  tyranny,  on  the 
one  hand,  and  against  popular  excitement  and  violence  on  the 
other  ;  if  it  provides,  in  itself,  for  complete  concert  in  action, 
without  the  necessity  of  resorting  to  extra  voluntary  associa- 
tions ;  if  it  furnishes  the  best  means  for  maintaining  pure  and 
energetic  discipline,  and  bringing  the  whole  Church  in  doubt- 
ful and  difficult  cases,  to  give  a  cahn  and  equitable  judgment; 
and  if  it  presents  the  most  effectual  means  of  purging  out 
error,  and  correcting  abuses  ;  then,  surely,  we  have  no  small 
evidence  that  it  is  from  the  God  of  truth  and  order,  and  ought 
to  be  maintained  in  all  the  Churches. 

Let  it  never  be  forgotten,  however,  that,  as  Presbyterianism, 
in  all  its  leading  features,  was,  undoubtedly,  the  'primitive 
and  apostolic  model  of  the  Church;  so,  in  order  to  the  main- 
tenance and  execution  of  this  system  to  the  best  advantage, 
there  must  be  a  large  portion  of  the  primitive  and  apostolic 
spirit  reigning  in  tlie  Church,  No  sooner  did  Christians 
lose  the  spirit  of  the  first  and  purest  age,  than  they  began  to 
depart  from  the  simplicity  of  Christ's  institutions.  Having  less 
spirituality  to  present,  they  thought  to  compensate  for  this  de- 
fect by  outward  show  and  ceremonial.  Uncommanded  rites 
and  forms  were  multiplied,  for  the  purpose  of  attracting  both 
Jews  and  Pagans  into  the  Church.  Purity  of  doctrine  gave 
way  to  the  speculations  of  philosophy.  Purity  of  discipUne 
became  unpopular,  and  yielded  to  the  laxity  of  luxurious  and 
fashionable  life.  Prelacy,  as  we  have  seen  in  a  former  chap- 
ter, gradually  crept  into  the  Church  ;  and  with  it  many  in- 
ventions of  men  to  allure  and  beguile  those  who  had  lost  all 
relish  for  primitive  simplicity. 

Now,  just  so  far  as  we  retain  the  simple  devoted  spirit  of 
the  apostolic  age,  we  shall  love,  retain,  and  honour  Presbyte- 


98  WORSHIP  &c. 

rianism.  Those  who  possess  most  of  this  spirit,  will  be  most 
friendly  to  this  system.  But  just  in  proportion  as  that  spirit 
declines,  Presbyterian  doctrines  will  be  thought  too  rigid; 
Presbyterian  worship  will  appear  too  simple  and  naked ;  and 
Presbyterian  discipline  will  be  regarded  as  too  unaccommo- 
dating and  austere.  Let  Presbyterians,  then,  learn  a  lesson 
of  wisdom  from  this  consideration.  Let  them  remember  that 
their  system  will  never  appear  so  well,  or  work  so  well,  as  in 
the  midst  of  simple,  primitive,  and  devoted  piety.  This  is  its 
genial  soil.  As  long  as  such  a  soil  is  furnished,  it  will  grow. 
When  such  a  soil  is  not  furnished,  it  will  stiU  live,  and  do 
better  than  any  other  system,  on  the  whole ;  but  its  highest 
glory  will  have  departed,  and  something  else  will  begin  to  be 
thought  desirable  by  the  votaries  of  worldly  indulgence,  and 
worldly  splendour.  The  friends  of  our  beloved  Church 
ought  to  know,  and  lay  to  heart,  that  their  happiness  and 
their  strength  consist  in  cordial  and  diligent  adherence  to  that 
vital  principle,  the  language  of  which  is,  "  None  of  us  liveth 
to  himself,  and  no  man  dieth  to  himself.  For  whether  we 
live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord,  or  whether  we  die,  we  die  unto 
the  Lord;  whether  we  live,  therefore,  or  die,  we  are  the 


THE  END. 


INFANT  BAPTISM 


SCRIPTURAL  AND  REASONABLE 


BAPTISM 


SPRINKLING   OR  AFFUSION, 


THE  MOST  SUITABLE  AND  EDIFYING  MODE 


By  SAMUEL  MILLER,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR  OP  ECCLESIASTICAL  HISTORY  AND  CHURCH  GOVERNMENT  IN  THB 
THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY  AT  PRINCETON,  NEW  JERSEY. 


PHILADELPHIA: 

PRESBYTERIAN    BOARD    OF    TUELICATIOIV. 

JAMES   RDSSELL,   PUBLISHING   AGENT. 

1840. 


ADVERTISEMENT. 

The  substance  of  the  following  discourses  was  delivered,  in  two  sermons,  in  the 
church  in  Freehold,  Monmouth  county,  New  Jersey,  on  the  29th  of  September, 
1 834.  A  desii-e  for  their  publication  having  been  expressed  by  some  who  heard 
them,  I  have  thought  proper  to  revise  and  enlarge  the  whole,  and  jiresent  it  in 
the  present  forni.  The  subject  is  one  which  has  given  rise  to  much  warm  discus- 
sion, and  it  would  seem,  at  first  view,  to  be  a  worK  of  supererogation,  if  not  of 
still  more  unfavourable  character,  to  trouble  the  Christian  community  with  an- 
other treatise  upon  it.  But  our  Antiposdobaptist  brethren  appear  to  be  resolved 
that  it  shall  never  cease  to  be  agitated ;  and  as.  indeed,  the  constant  stirring  of 
this  controversy  seems  to  furnish  no  small  share  of  the  very  aliment  on  which  they 
depend  for  subj^istence  as  a  denomination,  they  cannot  be  expected  to  let  it  rest. 
The  great  importance  of  the  subject,  in  my  estimation  ;  and  the  hope  that  this 
little  volume  may  reach  and  benefit  some,  who  are  in  danger  of  being  drawn  into 
the  toils  of  error,  and  have  no  opportunity  of  perusing  larger  works,  have  induced 
me  to  undergo  the  labour  of  preparing  it  for  the  press. 

My  object  is  not  to  write  for  the  learned,  but  to  present  the  subject  in  that 
brief,  plain,  popular  manner  which  is  adapted  to  the  case  of  those  who  read  but 
little,  I  have,  therefore,  designedly  avoided  the  introduction  of  much  matter 
which  properly  belongs  to  the  subject,  and  which  is  to  be  found  in  larger  trea- 
tises ;  and  have  especially  refrained  from  entering  further  into  the  field  of  philo* 
logical  discussion,  than  was  absolutely  necessary  for  the  accomplishment  of  my 
plan. 

If  I  know  my  own  heart,  my  purpose  is,  not  to  wound  the  feelings  of  a  hiiman 
being;  not  to  stir  up  strife;  but  to  provide  a  little  manual,  better  adapted  than 
any  of  this  class  that  I  have  seen,  for  the  use  of  those  Presbyterians  who  are  con- 
tinually assaulted,  and  sometimes  perplexed,  by  their  Baptist  neighbours.  May  the 
Divine  benediction  rest  upon  the  humble  offering  1  S.  M. 

Priucelon,  July,  1834. 


Entered  accm-ding  to  Act  of  Congress  in  the  year  1835,  by  Dr.  A.  W.  Mitchell, 
in  the  office  of  the  Clerk  of  the  District  Court  for  the  Eastem  District  of 
Pennsylvania. 


INFANT    BAPTISM. 


DISCOURSE  I. 

And  when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  household,  she  besought  us  say- 
ing,  if  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into 
mine  house  and  abide  there. — Acts  xvi.  15. 

As  MAN  has  a  body  as  well  as  a  soul,  it  has  pleased  infi- 
nite wisdom  to  appoint  something  in  religion  adapted  to  both 
parts  of  our  nature.  Something  to  strike  the  senses,  as  well 
as  to  impress  the  conscience  and  the  heart ;  or  rather,  some- 
thing which  might  through  the  medium  of  the  senses,  reach 
and  benefit  the  spiritual  part  of  our  constitution.  For,  as 
our  bodies  in  this  world  of  sin  and  death,  often  become  sour- 
ces of  moral  mischief  and  pain,  so,  by  the  grace  of  God,  they 
are  made  inlets  to  the  most  refined  moral  pleasures,  and 
means  of  advancement  in  the  divine  life. 

But  while  the  outward  senses  are  to  be  consulted  in  reli- 
gion, they  are  not  to  be  invested  with  unlimited  dominion. 
Accordingly  the  external  rites  and  ceremonies  of  Christi- 
anity are  few  and  simple,  but  exceedingly  appropriate  and 
significant.  We  have  but  two  sacraments,  the  one  emble- 
matical of  that  spiritual  cleansing,  and  the  other  of  that  spiri- 
tual nourishment,  which  we  need  both  for  enjoyment  and 
for  duty.  To  one  of  these  sacramental  ordinances  there  is  a 
pointed  reference  in  the  original  commission  given  by  their 
Master  to  the  apostles:  "Go  ye  into  all  the  world,  and 
preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature, — baptizing  them  in  the 
name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost ; 
teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  whatsoever  I  have  com- 
manded you,  and  lo,  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the 
end  of  the  world.^'  (Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.)  And,  accord- 
ingly, wherever  the  Gospel  was  received,  we  find  holy 
baptism  reverently  administered  as  a  sign  and  seal  of  mem- 
bership in  the  family  of  Christ.  Thus  on  the  occasion  to 
which  our  text  refers,  "a  certain  woman,"  we  are  told, 
*'  named  Lydia,  a  seller  of  purple,  of  the  city  of  Thyatira, 
heard  Paul  and  Silas  preach  in  the  city  of  Philippi ;  and  the 
Lord  opened  her  heart,  so  that  she  attended  unto  the  things 
which  were  spoken  of  Paul.  And  when  she  was  baptized, 
and  her  household,  she  besought  us,   saying,   If  ye  have 

1*  17 


6  INFANT  BAPTISM 

judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  mine  house 
and  abide  there." 

I  propose,  my  friends,  from  these  words,  to  address  you 
on  the  subject  of  Christian  Baptism.  You  are  sensible 
that  this  is  a  subject  on  which  much  controversy  has  exist- 
ed, in  modern  times,  among  professing  Christians.  It  shall 
be  my  endeavour,  by  the  grace  of  God,  with  all  candour  and 
impartiality,  to  inquire  what  the  Scriptures  teach  concerning 
this  ordinance,  and  what  appears  to  have  been  the  practice  in 
regard  to  it  in  the  purest  and  best  ages  of  the  Christian 
church,  as  well  as  in  later  times.  May  I  be  enabled  to 
speak,  and  you  to  hear  as  becomes  those  who  expect  in  a 
little  while,  to  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  Christ. 

There  are  two  questions  concerning  baptism  to  which  I 
request  your  special  attention  at  this  time,  viz  :  Who  are  the 
proper  subjects  of  this  ordinance  ?  And  in  what  manner 
ought  it  to  be  administered  ?  To  the  first  of  these  questions 
our  attention  will  be  directed  in  the  present,  and  the  en- 
suing discourse. 

I.  Who  are  to  be  considered  as  the  proper  subjects  of 
Christian  Baptism? 

-  That  baptism  ought  to  be  adminstered  to  all  adult  persons, 
who  profess  faith  in  Christ,  and  obedience  to  him,  and  who 
have  not  been  baptized  in  their  infancy,  is  not  doubted  by 
any.  In  this  all  who  consider  baptism  as  an  ordinance  at 
present  obhgatory  are  agreed.  But  it  is  well  known  that 
there  is  a  large  and  respectable  body  of  professing  Christians 
among  us  who  believe,  and  confidently  assert,  that  baptism 
ought  to  be  confined  to  adults ;  who  insist,  that  when  pro- 
fessing Christians  bring  their  infant  offspring,  and  dedicate 
them  to  God,  and  receive  for  them  the  washing  of  sacra- 
mental water  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  entirely  pervert  and  misapply  an 
important  Christian  ordinance.  We  highly  respect  the  sin- 
cerity and  piety  of  many  who  entertain  these  opinions ;  but 
we  are  perfectly  persuaded  that  they  are  in  error,  nay  in 
great  and  mischievous  error ;  in  error  which  cannot  fail  of 
exerting  a  most  unhappy  influence  on  the  best  interests  of  the 
Church  of  God.  We  have  no  doubt  that  the  visible  church 
is  made  up,  not  only  of  those  who  personally  profess  the  true 
religion,  but  also  of  their  children  ;  and  that  we  are  bound  not 
only  to  confess  Christ  before  men  for  ourselves,  but  also  to 
bring  our  infant  seed  in  the  arms  of  faith  and  love,  and  pre- 
sent them  before  the  Lord,  in  that  ordinance  which  is  at  once 
a  seal  of  God's  covenant  with  his  people,  and  an  emblem  of 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  7 

those  spiritual  blessings  which,  as  sinners,  we  and  our  chil- 
dren equally  and  indispensably  need. 

Our  reasons  for  entertaining  this  opinion,  with  entire  con- 
fidence are  the  following  : 

1.  Because  in  all  Jehovah^ s  covenants  ivith  his  -profes- 
sing people,  from  the  earliest  ages,  and  in  all  stales  of  so- 
ciety, their  infant  seed  have  been  included.  That  this  was 
the  case  with  regard  to  the  first  covenant  made  with  Adam 
in  paradise,  is  granted  by  all ;  certainly  by  aU  with  whom 
we  have  any  controversy  concerning  infant  baptism.  And 
indeed  the  consequences  of  the  violation  of  that  covenant  to 
all  his  posterity,  furnish  a  standing  and  a  mournful  testimony 
that  it  embraced  them  all.  The  covenant  made  with  Noah, 
after  the  deluge,  was,  as  to  this  point,  of  the  same  character. 
Its  language  was,  "  Behold,  I  establish  my  covenant  with 
thee  and  with  thy  seerf."  The  covenant  with  Abraham  was 
equally  comprehensive.  "  Behold,"  says  Jehovah,  "  my 
covenant  is  with  thee.  Behold,  I  establish  my  covenant 
with  thee,  and  with  thy  seed,  after  thee."  The  Covenants 
of  Sinai  and  of  Moab,  it  is  evident,  also  comprehended  the 
children  of  the  immediate  actors  in  the  passing  scenes,  and 
attached  to  them,  as  well  as  to  their  fathers,  an  interest  in  the 
blessings  or  the  curses,  the  promises  or  the  threatenings 
which  those  covenants  respectively  included.  Accordingly 
when  Moses  was  about  to  take  leave  of  the  people,  he  ad- 
dressed them  as  "standing  before  the  Lord  their  God,  with 
their  little  ones,  and  their  wives,  to  enter  into  covenant  with 
the  Lord  their  God."  (Deut.  xxix.  10 — 12.)  And  when 
we  come  to  the  New  Testament  economy,  still  we  find  the 
same  interesting  feature  not  only  retained,  but  more  stri- 
kingly and  strongly  displayed.  Still  the  promise,  it  is  de- 
clared, is  "to  us  and  our  children,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord 
our  God  shall  call." 

Now,  has  this  been  a  feature  in  all  Jehovah's  covenants 
with  his  people  in  every  age  ?  And  shall  we  admit  the  idea 
of  its  failing  in  that  New  Testament  or  Christian  covenant, 
which,  though  the  same  in  substance  with  those  which  pre- 
ceded it,  excels  them,  all  in  the  extent  of  its  privileges,  and 
in  the  glory  of  its  promises  ?  It  cannot  be.  The  thought 
is  inadmissible.     But  farther, 

2.  The  close  and  endearing  connection  between  parents 
and  children  affords  a  strong  argument  in  favour  of  the 
church-membership  of  the  infant  seed  of  believers.  The 
voice  of  nature  is  lifted  up,  and  pleads  most  powerfully  in 
behalf  of  our  cause.     The  thought  of  severing  parents  from 


8  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

their  oifspring,  in  regard  to  the  most  interesting  relations  in 
which  it  has  pleased  God  in  his  adorable  providence  to 
place  them,  is  equally  repugnant  to  Christian  feeling,  and 
to  natural  law.  Can  it  be,  my  friends,  that  when  the  stem 
is  in  the  church,  the  branch  is  out  of  it?  Can  it  be  that 
when  the  parent  is  within  the  visible  kingdom  of  the  Re- 
deemer, his  offspring,  bone  of  his  bone,  and  flesh  of  his 
flesh,  have  no  connection  with  it  ?  It  is  not  so  in  any  other 
society  that  the  great  moral  Governor  of  the  world  ever 
formed.  It  is  not  so  in  civil  society.  Children  are  born 
citizens  of  the  State  in  which  their  parents  resided  at  the 
time  of  their  birth.  In  virtue  of  their  birth  they  are  plenary 
citizens,  bound  by  all  the  duties,  and  entitled  to  all  the  pri- 
vileges of  that  relation,  whenever  they  become  capable  of  ex- 
ercising them.  From  these  duties  they  cannot  be  liberated. 
Of  these  privileges  they  cannot  be  deprived,  but  by  the 
commission  of  crime.  But  why  should  this  great  principle 
be  set  aside  in  the  church  of  God  ?  Surely  it  is  not  less 
obvious  or  less  powerful  in  grace  than  in  nature.  The  ana- 
logies which  pervade  all  the  works  and  dispensations  of  God 
are  too  uniform  and  striking  to  be  disregarded  in  an  inquiry 
like  the  present.  But  we  hasten  to  facts  and  considerations 
still  more  explicitly  laid  down  in  Holy  Scripture. 

3.  The  actual  and  acknoivledged  church-membership  of 
infants  under  the  Old  Testament  economy  is  a  decisive 
index  of  the  divine  will  in  r^ard  to  this  matter. 

Whatever  else  may  be  doubtful,  it  is  certain  that  infants 
were,  in  fact,  members  of  the  church  under  the  former  dis- 
pensation ;  and  as  such,  were  the  regular  subjects  of  a  cove- 
nant seal.  When  God  called  Abraham,  and  established  his 
covenant  with  him,  he  not  only  embraced  his  infant  seed,  in 
the  most  express  terms,  in  that  covenant,  but  he  also  appoint- 
ed an  ordinance  by  which  this  relation  of  his  children  to  the 
visible  church  was  publicly  ratified  and  sealed,  and  that 
when  they  were  only  eight  days  old.  If  Jewish  adults 
were  members  of  the  church  of  God,  under  that  economy, 
then,  assuredly,  their  infant  seed  were  equally  members,  for 
they  were  brought  into  the  same  covenant  relation,  and  had 
the  same  covenant  seal  impressed  upon  their  flesh  as  their 
adult  parents.  This  covenant,  moreover,  had  a  respect  to 
spiritual  as  well  as  temporal  blessings.  Circumcision  is  ex- 
pressly declared,  by  the  inspired  apostle,  to  have  been  "  a 
seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith."  (Rom.  iv.  11.)  So  far 
was  it  from  being  a  mere  pledge  of  the  possession  of  Canaan, 
and  the  enjoyment  of  temporal  prosperity  there,  that  it  rati 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  9 

fied  and  sealed  a  covenant  in  which  "  all  the  families  of  the 
earth  were  to  be  blessed."  And  yet  this  covenant  seal  was 
solemnly  appointed  by  God  to  be  administered,  and  was 
actually  administered,  fdr  nearly  two  thousand  years,  to  in- 
fants of  the  tenderest  age,  in  token  of  their  relation  to  God's 
covenanted  family,  and  of  their  right  to  the  privileges  of  that 
covenant.  Here  then,  is  a  fact, — a  fact  incapable  of  being 
disguised  or  denied, — nay,  a  fact  acknowledged  by  all — on 
which  the  advocates  of  infant  baptism  may  stand  as  upon  an 
immoveable  rock.  For  if  infinite  wisdom  once  saw  that  it 
was  right  and  fit  that  infants  should  be  made  the  subjects  of 
*'  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,"  before  they  were  capa- 
ble of  exercising  faith,  surely  a  transaction  the  same  in  sub- 
stance may  be  right  and  fit  now.  Baptism,  which  is,  in  like 
manner,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith,  may,  without 
impropriety,  be  applied  equally  early.  What  once,  un- 
doubtedly, existed  in  the  church,  and  that  by  divine  ap- 
pointment, may  exist  still,  without  any  impeachment  of 
either  the  wisdom  or  benevolence  of  Him  who  appointed  it. 
But, 

4.  As  the  infant  seed  of  the  people  of  God  are  acknow- 
ledged on  all  hands  to  have  been  members  of  the  church, 
equally  with  their  parents  under  tho  Old  Testament  dispen- 
sation, so  it  is  equally  certain  that  the  church  of  God  is  the 
same  in  substance  now  that  it  was  then  ;  and,  of  course,  it 
is  just  as  reasonable  and  proper,  on  principle,  that  the  infant 
offspring  of  professed  believers  should  be  members  of  the 
church  now,  as  it  was  that  they  should  be  members  of  the 
ancient  church.  I  am  aware  that  our  Baptist  brethren 
warmly  object  to  this  statement,  and  assert  that  the  church 
of  God  under  the  Old  Testament  economy  and  the  New,  is 
not  the  same,  but  so  essentially  different,  that  the  same  prin- 
ciples can  by  no  means  apply  to  each.  They  contend  that 
the  Old  Testament  dispensation  was  a  kind  of  political  eco- 
nomy, rather  national  than  spiritual  in  its  character ;  and,  of 
course,  that  when  the  Jews  ceased  to  be  a  people,  the  cove- 
nant under  which  they  had  been  placed,  was  altogether  laid 
aside,  and  a  covenant  of  an  entirely  new  character  introduced. 
But  nothing  can  be  more  evident  than  that  this  view  of  the 
subject  is  entirely  erroneous.  The  perpetuity  of  the  Abra 
hamic  covenant,  and,  of  consequence  the  identity  of  the 
church  under  both  dispensations,  is  so  plainly  taught  in 
Scripture,  and  follows  so  unavoidably  from  the  radical  scrip- 
tural principles  concerning  the  church  of  God,  that  it  is 
indeed  wonderful  how  any  believer  in  the  Bible  can  call  ir* 

17* 


10  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

question  the  fact.  Every  thing  essential  to  ecclesiastical 
identity  is  evidently  found  here.  The  same  Divine  Head ; 
the  same  precious  covenant ;  the  same  great  spiritual  design ; 
the  same  atoning  blood ;  the  same  sanctifying  Spirit,  in 
which  we  rejoice,  as  the  life  and  the  glory  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament church,  we  know,  from  the  testimony  of  Scripture, 
were  also  the  life  and  the  glory  of  the  church  before  the 
coming  of  the  Messiah.  It  is  not  more  certain  that  a  man, 
arrived  at  mature  age,  is  the  same  individual  that  he  was 
when  an  infant  on  his  mother's  lap,  than  it  is  that  the 
church,  in  the  plenitude  of  her  light  and  privileges,  after  the 
coming  of  Christ,  is  the  same  church  which,  many  centuries 
before,  though  with  a  much  smaller  amount  of  light  and  pri- 
vilege, yet,  as  we  are  expressly  told  in  the  New  Testament, 
(Acts  vii.  38,)  enjoyed  the  presence  and  guidance  of  her 
Divine  Head  "  in  the  wilderness."  The  truth  is,  the  inspired 
apostle,  in  writing  to  the  Galatians,  (iv.  I — 6,)  formally  com- 
pares the  covenanted  people  of  God,  under  the  Old  Testa- 
ment economy,  to  an  heir  under  age.  "Now  I  say,  that 
the  heir,  as  long  as  he  is  a  child,  differeth  nothing  from  a 
servant,  though  he  be  lord  of  all ;  but  is  under  tutors  and 
governors,  until  the  time  appointed  of  the  father.  Even  so 
we,  when  we  were  children,  were  in  bondage  under  the 
elements  of  the  world.  But  when  the  fulness  of  the  time 
was  come,  God  sent  forth  his  Son,  made  of  a  woman,  made 
under  the  law,  to  redeem  them  that  were  under  the  law,  that 
we  might  receive  the  adoption  of  sons." 

Hence,  the  inspired  apostle,  in  writing  to  the  Hebrews, 
(iv.  2,)  referring  to  the  children  of  Israel,  says — ''  Unto  us 
was  the  Gospel  preached,  as  well  as  unto  them."  Again  in 
writing  unto  the  Corinthians,  (x.  1—4,)  he  declares,  "They 
did  all  eat  the  same  spiritual  meat,  and  did  all  drink  the  same 
spiritual  drink ;  for  they  drank  it  of  that  spiritual  rock  which 
followed  them,  and  that  rock  was  Christ."  "  Abraham," 
we  are  told,  (John  viii.  56,)  "rejoiced  to  see  Christ's  day 
he  saw  it,  and  was  glad."  And,  of  the  patriarchs  generally, 
we  are  assured  that  they  saw  Gospel  promises  afar  off,  and 
embraced  them.  The  church  under  the  old  economy,  then, 
was  not  only  a  church — a  true  church — a  divinely  consti- 
tuted church— but  it  was  a  Gospel  church,  a  church  of  Christ 
— a  church  built  upon  the  "  same  foundation  as  that  of  the 
apostles." 

But  what  places  the  identity  of  the  church,  under  both  dis- 
pensations, in  the  clearest  and  strongest  light,  is  that  memo- 
rable and  decisive  passage,  in  the  11th  chapter  of  the  Epistle 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  11 

to  the  Romans,  in  which  the  church  of  God  is  held  forth  to 
us  under  the  emblem  of  an  olive  tree.  Under  the  same 
figure  had  the  Lord  designated  the  church  by  the  pen  of  Je- 
remiah the  prophet,  in  the  11th  chapter  of  his  prophecy. 
The  prophet  speaking  of  God's  covenanted  people  under 
that  economy,  says — "  The  Lord  called  thy  name  a  green 
olive  tree,  fair  and  of  goodly  fruit."  But  concerning  this 
olive  tree,  on  account  of  the  sin  of  the  people  in  forsaking 
the  Lord,  the  prophet  declares :  "  With  the  noise  of  a  great 
tumult  he  hath  kindled  a  fire  upon  it,  and  the  branches  of  it 
are  broken."  Let  me  request  you  to  compare  with  this,  the 
language  of  the  apostle  in  the  11th  chapter  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Romans  :  "  For  if  the  casting  away  of  them  be  the  recon- 
ciling of  the  world,  what  shall  the  receiving  of  them  be  but 
life  from  the  dead  ?  For  if  the  first  fruit  be  holy,  the  lump 
is  also  holy ;  and  if  the  root  be  holy,  so  are  the  branches. 
And  if  some  of  the  branches  be  broken  off,  and  thou,  being  a 
wild  olive  tree,  wert  grafted  in  among  them,  and  with  them 
partakest  of  the  root  and  fatness  of  the  olive  tree ;  boast  not 
against  the  branches ;  but  if  thou  boast,  thou  bearest  not  the 
root,  but  the  root  thee.  Thou  wilt  say,  then,  the  branches 
were  broken  off,  that  I  might  be  grafted  in.  Well,  because 
of  unbelief  they  were  broken  off,  and  thou  standest  by  faith. 
Be  not  high-minded,  but  fear.  For  if  God  spared  not  the  natu- 
ral branches,  take  heed  lest  he  also  spare  not  thee.  Behold, 
therefore,  the  goodness  and  severity  of  God !  on  them  which 
fell  severity ;  but  toward  thee  goodness,  if  thou  continue  in 
his  goodness.  Otherwise  thou  also  shalt  be  broken  off. 
And  they  also,  if  they  abide  not  still  in  unbelief,  shall  be 
grafted  in,  for  God  is  able  to  graft  them  in  again.  For  if 
thou  wert  cut  out  of  the  olive  tree,  which  is  wild  by  nature, 
and  wert  grafted,  contrary  to  nature,  into  a  good  olive  tree, 
how  much  more  shall  these,  which  be  the  natural  branches, 
be  grafted  into  their  own  olive  tree  ?" 

That  the  apostle  is  here  speaking  of  the  Old  Testament 
church,  under  the  figure  of  a  good  olive  tree,  cannot  be 
doubted,  and  is,  indeed,  acknowledged  by  all;  by  our  Bap- 
tist brethren  as  well  as  others.  Now  the  inspired  apostle 
says  concerning  this  olive  tree,  that  the  natural  branches, 
that  is  the  Jews,  were  broken  off  because  of  unbelief.  But 
what  was  the  consequence  of  this  excision  1  Was  the  tree 
destroyed?  By  no  means.  The  apostle  teaches  directly 
the  contrary.  It  is  evident,  from  his  language,  that  the  root 
and  trunk,  in  all  their  "fatness,"  remained;  and  Gentiles, 
branches  of  an  olive  tree  "wild  by  nature,"  were  "grafted 


12  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

into  the  good  olive  tree;" — the  same  tree  from  which  the 
natural  branches  had  been  broken  off.  Can  any  thing  be 
more  pointedly  descriptive  of  identity  than  inis  ?  But  this 
is  not  all.  The  apostle  apprizes  us  that  the  Jews  are  to  be 
brought  back  from  their  rebellion  and  wanderings  and  to  be 
incorporated  with  the  Christian  church.  And  how  is  this 
restoration  described?  It  is  called  "  grafting  them  in  again 
into  their  own  olive  tree^  In  other  words,  the  "tree"  into 
which  the  Gentile  Christians  at  the  coming  of  Christ  were 
"grafted,"  was  the  "old  olive  tree,"  of  which  the  ancient 
covenant  people  of  God  were  the  "natural  branches;"  and, 
of  course,  when  the  Jews  shall  be  brought  in,  with  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Gentiles,  into  the  Christian  church,  the  apostle 
expressly  tells  us  they  shall  be  ^'grafted  again  into  their 
own  olive  tree.^^  Surely,  if  the  church  of  God  before  the 
coming  of  Christ,  and  the  church  of  God  after  the  advent, 
were  altogether  distinct  and  separate  bodies,  and  not  the 
same  in  their  essential  characters,  it  would  be  an  abuse  of 
terms  to  represent  the  Jews,  when  converted  to  Christianity, 
as  grafted  again  into  their  ovjn  olive  tree. 

5.  Having  seen  that  the  infant  seed  of  the  professing  peo- 
ple of  God  were  members  of  the  church  under  the  Old  Tes- 
tament economy;  and  having  seen  also  that  the  church 
under  that  dispensation  and  the  present  is  the  same;  we  are 
evidently  prepared  to  take  another  step,  and  to  infer,  that  if 
infants  were  once  members,  and  if  the  church  remains  the 
same,  they  undoubtedly  are  still  members,  unless  some  posi- 
tive divine  enactment  excluding  them,  can  be  found.  As  it 
was  a  positive  divine  enactment  which  brought  them  in,  and 
gave  them  a  place  in  the  church,  so  it  is  evident  that  a  divine 
enactment  as  direct  and  positive,  repealing  u:*iir  old  privilege, 
and  excluding  them  from  the  covenanted  faniily,  must  be 
found,  or  they  are  still  in  the  church.  But  can  such  an  act 
of  repeal  and  exclusion,  I  ask,  be  produced  ?  It  cannot.  It 
never  has  been,  and  it  never  can  be.  The  introduction  of 
infants  into  the  church  by  divine  appointment,  is  undoubted. 
The  identity  of  the  church,  under  both  dispensations,  is 
undoubted.  The  perpetuity  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  in 
which  not  merely  the  lineal  descendants  of  Abraham,  but 
"«//  the  nations  of  the  earth  were  to  be  blessed,''^  is  un- 
doubted. And  we  find  no  hint  in  the  New  Testament  of 
the  high  privileges  granted  to  the  infant  seed  of  believers 
being  withdrawn.  Only  concede  that  it  has  not  been  for- 
mally withdrawn,  and  it  remains  of  course.  The  advocates 
of  infant  baptism  are  not  bound  to  produce  from  the  New 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  13 

Testament  an  express  warrant  for  the  membership  of  the 
children  ot  believers.  The  warrant  was  given  most  ex- 
pressly and  formally,  two  thousand  years  before  the  New 
Testament  was  written;  and  having  never  been  revoked, 
remains  firmly  and  indisputably  in  force. 

It  is  deeply  to  be  lamented  that  our  Baptist  brethren  can- 
not be  prevailed  upon  to  recognise  the  length  and  breadth, 
and  bearing  of  this  great  ecclesiastical  fact.  Here  were  lit- 
tle children  eight  days  old,  acknowledged  as  members  of  a 
covenanted  society — a  society  consecrated  to  God  for  spi- 
ritual as  well  as  temporal  benefits — and  stamped  with  a  cove- 
nant seal,  by  which  they  were  formally  bound,  as  the  seed 
of  believers,  to  be  entirely  and  forever  the  Lord's.  Can  in- 
fant membership  be  ridiculed,  as  it  often  is,  without  lifting 
the  puny  arm  against  Him  who  was  with  "his  church  in 
the  wilderness,  and  whose  ways  are  all  wise  and  right- 
eous?" 

6.  Our  next  step  is  to  show  that  baptism  has  come  in  the 
room,  of  circumcision,  and  therefore,  that  the  former  is 
rightfully  and  properly  applied  to  the  same  subjects  as  the 
latter.  When  we  say  this,  we  mean,  not  merely  that  cir- 
cumcision is  laid  aside  in  the  church  of  Christ,  and  that 
baptism  has  been  brought  in,  but  that  baptism  occupies  the 
same  place,  as  the  appointed  initiatory  ordinance  in  the 
church,  and  that,  as  a  moral  emblem,  it  means  the  same 
thing.  The  meaning  and  design  of  circumcision  was 
chiefly  spiritual.  It  was  a  seal  of  a  covenant  which  had  not 
solely,  or  even  mainly,  a  respect  to  the  possession  of  Ca- 
naan, and  to  the  temporal  promises  which  were  connected 
with  a  residence  in  that  land;  but  which  chiefly  regarded 
higher  and  more  important  blessings,  even  those  which  are 
conveyed  through  the  Messiah,  in  whom  "  all  the  families 
of  the  earth"  are  to  be  blessed.  So  it  is  with  baptism. 
While  it  marks  an  external  relation,  and  seals  outward 
privileges,  it  is,  as  circumcision  was,  a  "  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith,"  and  has  a  primary  reference  to  the  bene- 
fits of  the  Messiah's  mission  and  reign.  Circumcision  was. a 
token  of  visible  membership  in  the  family  of  God,  and  of 
covenant  obligation  to  him.  So  is  baptism.  Circumcision 
was  the  ordinance  which  marked,  or  publicly  ratified,  en- 
trance into  that  visible  family.  So  does  baptism.  Cir- 
cumcision was  an  emblem  of  moral  cleansing  and  purity. 
So  is  baptism.  It  refers  to  the  remission  of  sins  by  the 
blood  of  Christ,  and  regeneration  by  his  Spirit ;  and  teaches 
us  that  we  are  by  nature  guilty  and  depraved,  and  stand  in 

2 


14  OFANT   BAPTISM. 

need  of  the  pardoning  and  sanctifying  grace  of  God  by  a 
crucified  Redeemer.  Surely,  then,  there  is  the  best  founda- 
tion for  asserting  that  baptism  has  come  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision. The  latter,  as  all  grant,  has  been  discontinued ; 
and  now  baptism  occupies  the  same  place,  means  the  same 
thing,  seals  the  same  covenant,  and  is  a  pledge  of  the  same 
spiritual  blessings.  Who  can  doubt,  then,  that  there  is  the 
utmost  propriety,  upon  principle,  in  applying  it  to  the  same 
infant  subjects? 

Yet,  though  baptism  manifestly  comes  in  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision, there  are  points  in  regard  to  which  the  former 
differs  materially  from  the  latter.  And  it  differs  precisely  as 
to  those  points  in  regard  to  which  the  New  Testament  econ- 
omy differs  from  the  Old,  in  being  more  enlarged,  and  less 
ceremonial.  Baptism  is  not  ceremonially  restricted  to  the 
eighth  day,  but  may  be  administered  at  any  time  and  place. 
It  is  not  confined  to  one  sex ;  but,  like  the  glorious  dispensa- 
tion of  which  it  is  a  seal,  it  marks  an  enlarged  privilege,  and 
is  administered  in  a  way  which  reminds  us  that  "  there  is  nei- 
ther Greek  nor  Jew,  neither  bond  nor  free,  neither  male  nor 
female,  in  the  Christian  economy ;  but  that  we  are  all  one  in 
Christ  Jesus." 

7.  Again ;  it' is  a  strong  argument  in  favour  of  infant  bap- 
tism, that  we  find  the  principle  of  family  baptism  again  and 
again  adopted  in  the  apostolic  age.  We  are  told,  by  men 
learned  in  Jewish  antiquities,  that,  under  the  Old  Testament 
economy,  it  was  customary,  when  proselytes  to  Judaism 
were  gained  from  the  surrounding  nations,  that  all  the  chil- 
dren of  a  family  were  invariably  admitted  to  membership  in 
the  church  with  their  parents ;  and  on  the  faith  of  their 
parents ;  that  all  the  males,  children  and  adults,  were  circum- 
cised, and  the  whole  family,  male  and  female,  baptized,  and 
incorporated  with  the  community  of  God's  covenanted  peo- 
ple.*    Accordingly,  when  we  examine  the  New  Testament 

*  I  consider  the  Jewish  baptism  of  proselytes  as  a  historical  fact 
well  established.  I  am  aware  that  some  Pedobaptists,  whose  judgment 
and  learning  I  greatly  respect,  have  expressed  doubts  in  reference  to 
this  matter.  But  when  I  find  the  Jews  asking  John  the  Baptist,  "  Why 
baptizest  thou,  then,  if  thou  be  not  the  Christ?"  &c.,  I  can  only  ac- 
count for  their  language  by  supposing  that  they  had  been  accustomed 
to  that  rite,  and  expected  the  Messiah,  when  he  came,  to  practice  it. 
We  have  the  best  evidence  that  they  baptized  their  proselytes  as  early 
as  the  second  century  ;  and  it  is  altogether  incredible  that  they  should 
copy  it  from  the  Christians.  And  a  great  majority  of  the  most  com- 
petent judges  in  this  case,  both  Jewish  and  Christian,  from  Selden  and 
Lightfoot  down  to  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  have  considered  the  testimony  to 
the  fact  as  abundant  and  conclusive. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  15 

history,  we  find  that  under  the  ministry  of  the  apostles,  who 
were  all  native  Jews,  and  had,  of  course,  been  long  accus- 
tomed to  this  practice,  the  same  principle  of  receiving  and 
baptizing  families  on  the  faith  of  the  parents,  was  most  evi- 
dently adopted  and  acted  upon  in  a  very  striking  manner. 
When  "  the  heart  of  Lydia  was  opened,  so  that  she  attended 
to  the  things  which  were  spoken  by  Paul,"  we  are  told  that 
"  she  was  baptized  and  her  household."  When  the  jailor  at 
Philippi  believed,  "  he  was  baptized,  he  and  all  liis,  straight- 
way." Thus  also  we  read  of  "  the  household  of  Stephanas" 
being  baptized.  Now,  though  we  are  not  certain  that  there 
were  young  children  in  any  of  these  families,  it  is  highly 
probable  there  were.  At  any  rate,  .the  great  principle  of 
family  baptism,  of  receiving  all  the  younger  members  of 
households  on  the  faith  of  their  domestic  head,  seems  to  be 
plainly  and  decisively  established.  This  furnishes  ground  on 
which  the  advocate  of  infant  baptism  may  stand  with  unwa- 
vering confidence. 

And  here  let  me  ask,  was  it  ever  known  that  a  case  of 
family  baptism  occurred  under  the  direction  of  a  Baptist  min- 
ister? Was  it  ever  known  to  be  recorded,  or  to  have  hap- 
pened, that  when,  under  the  influence  of  Baptist  ministra- 
tions, the  parents  of  large  families  were  hopefully  converted, 
they  were  baptized,  they  and  aU  their's  straightway  ?  There 
is  no  risk  in  asserting  that  such  a  case  was  never  heard  of. 
And  why  ?  Evidently,  because  our  Baptist  brethren  do  not 
act  in  this  matter  upon  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  New 
Testament,  and  which  regulated  the  primitive  Christians. 

8.  Another  consideration  possesses  much  weight  here. 
We  cannot  imagine  that  the  privileges  and  the  sign  of  infant 
membership,  to  which  all  the  first  Christians  had  been  so 
long  accustomed,  could  have  been  abruptly  withdrawn,  with- 
out luounding  the  hearts  of  parents,  and  producing  in  them 
feelings  of  revolt  and  complaint  against  the  new  economy. 
Yet  we  find  no  hint  of  this  recorded  in  the  history  of  the 
apostolic  age.  Upon  our  principles,  this  entire  silence  pre- 
sents no  difficulty.  The  old  principle  and  practice  of  infant 
membership,  so  long  consecrated  by  time,  and  so  dear  to  all 
the  feelings  of  parental  affection,  went  on  as  before.  The 
identity  of  the  church  under  the  new  dispensation  with  that 
of  the  old,  being  well  understood,  the  early  Christians  need- 
ed no  new  warrant  for  the  inclusion  of  their  infant  seed  in 
the  covenanted  family.  As  the  privilege  had  not  been  re- 
voked, it,  of  course,  continued.  A  new  and  formal  enact- 
ment in  favour  of  the  privilege  would  have  been  altogether 


16  mFANT  BAPTISM. 

superfluous,  not  to  say  out  of  place ;  especially  as  it  was  well 
understood,  from  the  whole  aspect  of  the  new  economy,  that, 
instead  of  withdrawing  or  narrowing  the  privileges,  its  whole 
character  was  that  it  rather  multiplied  and  extended  them. 

But  our  Baptist  brethren  are  under  the  necessity  of  sup- 
posing, that  such  of  the  first  Christians  as  had  been  Jews, 
and  who  had  ever  been  in  the  habit  of  considering  their  be- 
loved offspring  as  included,  with  themselves,  in  the  privileges 
and  promises  of  God's  covenant,  were  given  to  understand, 
when  the  New  Testament  church  was  set  up,  that  these 
covenant  privileges  and  promises  were  no  longer  to  be  enjoy- 
ed by  their  children ;  that  they  were,  henceforth,  to  be  no 
more  connected  with  the  church  than  the  children  of  the  sur- 
rounding heathen  ;  and  tliis  under  an  economy  distinguished, 
in  every  other  respect,  by  greater  light,  and  more  enlarged 
privilege  : — I  say,  our  Baptist  brethren  are  under  the  neces- 
sity of  supposing  that  the  first  Christians  were  met  on  the 
organization  of  the  New  Testament  church,  with  an  an- 
nouncement of  this  kind,  and  that  they  acquiesced  in  it  with- 
out a  feeling  of  surprise,  or  a  word  of  murmur !  Nay,  that 
this  whole  retrograde  change  passed  with  so  little  feeling  of 
interest,  that  it  was  never  so  much  as  mentioned  or  hinted  at 
in  any  of  the  epistles  to  the  churches.  But  can  this  suppo- 
sition be  for  a  moment  admitted  ?  It  is  impossible.  We  may 
conclude,  then,  that  the  acknowledged  silence  of  the  New 
Testament  as  to  any  retraction  of  the  old  privileges,  or  any 
complaint  of  its  recall,  is  so  far  from  warranting  a  conclusion 
unfavourable  to  the  church  membership  of  infants,  that  it 
furnishes  a  weighty  argument  of  an  import  directly  the  re- 
verse. 

9.  Although  the  New  Testament  does  not  contain  any 
specific  texts,  which,  in  so  many  words,  declare  that  the  in- 
fant seed  of  believers  are  members  of  the  church  in  virtue  of 
their  birth  ;  yet  it  abounds  in  passages  which  cannot  reason- 
ably be  explained  but  in  harmony  with  this  doctrine.  The 
following  are  a  specimen  of  the  passages  to  which  I  refer. 

The  prophet  Isaiah,  though  not  a  New  Testament  writer, 
speaks  much,  and  in  the  most  interesting  manner,  of  the  New 
Testament  times.  Speaking  of  the  "  latter  day  glory,"  of 
that  day  when  "the  wolf  and  the  lamb  shall  feed  together, 
and  the  lion  shall  eat  straw  like  the  bullock,  and  when  there 
shall  be  nothing  to  hurt  or  destroy  in  all  God's  holy  moun- 
tain ;"  speaking  of  that  day,  the  inspired  prophet  declares, 
*'  Behold,  I  create  new  heavens,  and  a  new  earth,  and  the 
former  shall  not  be  remembered,  nor  come  into  mind.     F 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  17 

as  the  days  of  a  tree  are  the  days  of  my  people,  and  mine 
elect  shall  long  enjoy  the  work  of  their  hands.  They  shall 
not  labour  in  vain,  nor  bring  forth  for  trouble  ;  for  they  are 
the  seed  of  the  blessed  of  the  Lord,  and  their  offspring  with 
them:'     Isaiah  Ixv.  17,  22,  23. 

The  language  of  our  Lord  concerning  little  children  can  be 
reconciled  with  no  other  doctrine  than  that  which  I  am  now 
endeavouring  to  establish,  "  Then  were  there  brought  unto 
him  little  children,  that  he  should  put  his  hands  on  them  and 
pray;  and  his  disciples  rebuked  them.  But  Jesus  said, 
"  Suffer  little  children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them  not, 
for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  And  he  laid  his  hands 
upon  them,  and  departed  thence."  Matt.  xix.  13 — 15.  On 
examining  the  language  used  by  the  several  EvangeUsts  in 
regard  to  this  occurrence,  it  is  evident  that  the  children  here 
spoken  of  were  young  children,  infants,  such  as  the  Saviour 
could  "  take  in  his  arms."  The  language  which  our  Lord 
himself  employs  concerning  them  is  remarkable.  "  Of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  That  is,  theirs  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven,  or,  to  them  belongs  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  It  is 
precisely  the  same  form  of  expression,  in  the  original,  which 
our  Lord  uses  in  the  commencement  of  his  sermon  on  the 
mount,  when  he  says,  "  Blessed  are  the  poor  in  spirit,  for 
theirs  is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ;"  "  Blessed  are  they  that  are 
persecuted  for  righteousness  sake,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom 
of  heaven."  This  form  of  expression,  of  course,  precludes 
the  construction  which  some  have  been  disposed  to  put  on 
the  passage,  in  order  to  evade  its  force,  viz.  that  it  implies, 
that  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  made  up  of  such  as  resemble 
little  children  in  spirit.  We  might  just  as  well  say,  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  does  not  belong  to  those  who  are  "  poor 
in  spirit,"  but  only  to  those  who  resemble  them ;  or,  that  it 
does  not  belong  to  those  who  are  *'  persecuted  for  righteous- 
ness sake,"  but  only  to  those  who  manifest  a  similar  temper. 
Our  Lord's  language  undoubtedly  meant  that  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  was  really  theirs  of  whom  he  spake ;  that  it  belonged 
to  them;  that  they  are  the  heirs  of  it,  just  as  the  "poor  in 
spirit,"  and  the  "  persecuted  for  righteousness  sake,"  are 
themselves  connected  in  spirit  and  in  promise  with  that  king- 
dom. 

But  what  are  we  to  understand  by  the  phrase  "  the  king- 
dom of  heaven,"  as  employed  in  this  place?  Most  mani- 
festly, we  are  to  understand  by  it,  the  visible  Church,  or  the 
visible  kingdom  of  Christ,  as  distinguished  both  from  the 
world,  and  the  old  economy.     Let  any  one  impartially  ex- 

3  18 


18  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

amine  the  Evangelists  throughout,  and  he  will  find  this  to  be 
the  general  import  of  the  phrase  in  question.  If  this  be  the 
meaning,  then  our  Saviour  asserts,  in  the  most  direct  and 
])ointed  terms,  the  reality  and  the  Divine  warrant  of  mfant 
church  membership.  But  even  if  the  kingdom  of  glory  be 
intended,  still  our  argument  is  not  weakened,  but  rather  for- 
tified. For  if  the  kingdom  of  glory  belong  to  the  infant  seed 
of  believers,  much  more  have  they  a  title  to  the  privileges  of 
the  church  on  earth. 

Another  passage  of  Scripture  strongly  speaks  the  same 
language.  I  refer  to  the  declaration  which  we  find  in  the 
sermon  of  the  apostle  Peter,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. — 
When  a  large  number  of  the  hearers,  on  that  solemn  day, 
were  "  pricked  in  their  hearts,  and  said  unto  Peter,  and  to  the 
rest  of  the  apostles,  men  and  brethren  what  shall  we  do  ?" 
The  reply  of  the  inspired  minister  of  Christ  was,  "  Repent, 
and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  promise  is  unto  you^  and  to 
your  children^  and  to  all  that  are  afar  off*,  even  as  many  as 
the  Lord  our  God  shall  call."  The  apostle  is  here  evidently 
speaking  of  the  promise  of  God  to  his  covenant  people ; 
that  promise  in  which  he  engages  to  be  their  God,  and  to 
constitute  them  his  covenanted  family.  Now  this  promise, 
he  declared  to  those  whom  he  addressed,  extended  to  their 
children  as  well  as  to  themselves,  and,  of  course,  gave  those 
children  a  covenant  right  to  the  privileges  of  the  family.  But 
if  they  have  a  covenant  title  to  a  place  in  this  family,  we 
need  no  formal  argument  to  show  that  they  are  entitled  to  the 
outward  token  and  seal  of  that  family. 

I  shall  adduce  only  one  more  passage  of  Scripture,  at  pre- 
sent, in  support  of  the  doctrine  for  which  I  contend.  I  refer 
to  that  remarkable,  and,  as  it  appears  to  me,  conclusive  dec- 
laration of  the  apostle  Paul,  concerning  children,  which  is 
found  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Co- 
rinthians, in  reply  to  a  query  addressed  to  him  by  the  mem- 
bers of  that  church  respecting  the  Ciiristian  law  of  marriage : 
"  The  unbelieving  husband  is  sanctified  by  the  wife  ;  and  the 
unbelieving  v/ife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband ;  else  were  your 
children  unclean,  but  now  are  they  holy."  The  great  ques- 
tion in  relation  to  this  passage  is,  in  what  sense  does  abehev- 
ing  parent  "  sanctify"  an  unbelieving  one,  so  that  their  chil- 
dren are  "  holy  ?"  It  certainly  cannot  mean,  that  every  pious 
husband  or  wife  that  is  allied  to  an  unbelieving  partner,  is 
always  instrumental  in  conferring  on  that  partner  true  spiritual 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  19 

purity,  or,  in  other  words,  regeneration  and  sanctiiication  of 
heart ;  nor  that  every  child  born  of  parents  of  whom  one  is 
a  believer,  is,  of  course  the  subject  of  gospel  holiness,  or  of 
internal  sanctification.  No  one  who  intelligently  reads  the 
Bible,  or  who  has  eyes  to  see  what  daily  passes  around  him, 
can  possibly  put  such  a  construction  on  the  passage.  Neither 
can  it  be  understood  to  mean,  as  some  have  strangely  imagin- 
ed, that  where  one  of  the  parents  is  a  believer,  the  children 
are  legitimate  ;  that  is,  the  offspring  of  parents,  one  of  whom 
is  pious,  are  no  longer  bastards,  but  are  to  be  considered  as 
begotten  in  lawful  wedlock!  The  word  *'holy"  is  no  where 
applied  in  Scripture  to  legitimacy  of  birth.  The  advocates 
of  this  construction  may  be  challenged  to  produce  a  single 
example  of  such  an  appUcation  of  the  term.  And  as  to  the 
suggestion  of  piety  in  one  party  being  necessary  to  render  a 
marriage  covenant  valid,  nothing  can  be  more  absurd.  Were 
the  marriages  of  the  heathen  in  the  days  of  Paul  all  illicit 
connexions  ?  Are  the  matrimonial  contracts  which  take  place 
every  day,  among  us,  where  neither  of  the  parties  are  pious, 
all  illegitimate  and  invaUd  ?  Surely  it  is  not  easy  to  conceive 
of  a  subterfuge  more  completely  preposterous,  or  more  adapt- 
ed to  discredit  a  cause  which  finds  it  necessary  to  resort  to 
such  aid. 

The  terms  "  holy"  and  unclean,"  as  is  well  known  to  aU 
attentive  readers  of  Scripture,  have  not  only  a  spiritual,  but 
also  an  ecclesiastical  sense  in  the  word  of  God.  While  in 
some  cases,  they  express  that  which  is  internally  and  spiritu- 
ally conformed  to  the  divine  image  ;  in  others,  they  quite  as 
plainly  designate  something  set  apart  to  a  holy  or  sacred  use  ; 
that  is,  separated  from  a  common  or  profane,  to  a  holy  pur- 
pose. Thus,  under  the  Old  Testament  economy,  the  pecu- 
liar people  of  God,  are  said  to  be  a  "  holy  people,"  and  to 
be  "  severed  from  all  other  people,  that  they  might  be  the 
Lord's  ;"  not  because  they  were  all,  or  even  a  majority  of 
them,  really  consecrated  in  heart  to  God ;  but  because  they 
were  all  his  professing  people, — his  covenanted  people  ;  they 
all  belonged  to  that  external  body  which  he  had  called  out  of 
the  world,  and  established  as  the  depository  of  his  truth,  and 
the  conservator  of  his  glory.  In  these  two  senses,  the  terms 
"holy"  and  "unclean"  are  used  in  both  Testaments,  times 
almost  innumerable.  And  what  their  meaning  is,  in  any  par- 
ticular case,  must  be  gathered  from  the  scope  of  the  passage. 
In  the  case  before  us,  the  latter  of  these  two  senses  is  evi- 
dently required  by  the  whole  spirit  of  the  apostle's  reasoning. 

It  appears  that  among  the  Corinthians,  to  whom  the  apos- 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 

tie  wrote,  there  were  many  cases  of  professing  Chnstians 
being  united  by  the  marriage  tie  with  pagans  ;  the  former, 
perhaps,  being  converted  after  marriage  ;  or  being  so  unwise, 
as,  after  conversion,  deUberately  to  form  this  unequal  and 
unhappy  connexion.  What  was  to  be  deemed  of  such  mar- 
riages, seems  to  have  been  the  gi-ave  question  submitted  to 
this  inspired  teacher.  He  pronounces,  under  the  direction  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  that,  in  all  such  cases,  when  the  unbeliever 
is  willing  to  live  with  the  believer,  they  ought  to  continue  to 
live  together,  that  their  connexion  is  so  sanctified  by  the  cha- 
racter of  the  beheving  companion,  that  their  children  are 
*'  holy,"  that  is,  in  covenant  with  God ;  members  of  that 
chu]:ch  with  which  the  behoving  parent  is,  in  virtue  of  his 
profession,  united  :  in  one  word,  that  the  infidel  party  is  so 
far,  and  in  such  a  sense,  consecrated  by  the  believing  party, 
that  their  children  shall  be  reckoned  to  belong  to  the  sacred 
family  with  which  the  latter  is  connected,  and  shall  be  regard- 
ed and  treated  as  members  of  the  Church  of  God.* 

"  The  passage  thus  explained,"  says  an  able  writer,  "  es- 
tabhshes  the  church  membership  of  infants  in  another  form. 
For  it  assumes  the  principle,  that  when  both  parents  are  re- 
puted believers,  their  children  belong  to  the  Church  of  God 
as  a  matter  of  course.  The  whole  difficulty  proposed  by  the 
Corinthians  to  Paul,  grows  out  of  this  principle.  Had  he 
taught,  or  they  understood,  that  no  children,  be  their  parents 
believers  or  unbelievers,  are  to  be  accounted  members  of  the 
church,  the  difficulty  could  not  have  existed.  For  if  the 
faith  of  both  parents  could  not  confer  upon  the  child  the  pri- 
vilege of  membership,  the  faith  of  only  one  of  them  certainly 
could  not.  The  point  was  decided.  It  would  have  been 
mere  impertinence  to  teaze  the  apostle  with  queries  which 
carried  their  own  answers  along  with  them.  But  on  the  sup- 
position that  when  both  parents  were  members,  their  children 
were  also  members  ;  the  difficulty  is  very  natural  and  serious. 
"  I  see,"  would  a  Corinthian  convert  exclaim,  "  I  see  the 
children  of  my  Christian  neighbours,  owned  as  members  ot 
the  Church  of  God ;  and  I  see  the  children  of  others,  who 
are  unbelievers  rejected  with  themselves.  I  believe  in  Christ 
myself;  but  my  husband,  my  wife,  believes  not.  What  is  to 
become  of  my  children  ?  Are  they  to  be  admitted  with  my- 
self ?     Or  are  they  to  be  cast  off  with  my  partner  ?" 

*  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  this  interpretation  of  the  passage  is 
adopted,  and  decisively  maintained  by  Augustine,  one  of  the  most 
pious  and  learned  divines  of  the  fourth  century,  De  Sermone  Domini 
in  Monte,  ch.  27. 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  21 

"  Let  not  your  heart  be  troubled,"  replies  the  apostle, 
»'  God  reckons  them  to  the  believing,  not  to  the  unbelieving 
parent.  It  is  enough  that  they  are  yours.  The  infidelity  of 
your  partner  shall  never  frustrate  their  interest  in  the  covenant 
of  your  God.    They  are  holy  because  you  are  so." 

"  This  decision  put  the  subject  at  rest.  And  it  lets  us 
know  that  one  of  the  reasons,  if  not  the  chief  reason  of  the 
doubt,  whether  a  married  person  should  continue,  after  con- 
version, in  the  conjugal  society  of  an  infidel  partner,  arose 
from  a  fear  lest  such  continuance  should  exclude  the  children 
from  the  church  of  God.  Otherwise,  it  is  hard  to  compre- 
hend why  the  apostle  should  dissuade  them  from  separating 
by  such  an  argument  as  he  has  employed  in  the  text.  And 
it  is  utterly  inconceivable  how  such  a  doubt  could  have  enter- 
ed their  minds,  had  not  the  membership  of  infants,  born  of 
believing  parents,  been  undisputed,  and  esteemed  a  high  priv- 
ilege, so  high  a  privilege,  that  the  apprehension  of  losing  it, 
made  conscientious  parents  at  a  stand  whether  they  ought 
not  rather  to  .break  the  ties  of  wedlock,  by  withdrawing  from 
an  unbelieving  husband  or  wife.  Thus  the  origin  of  this 
difficulty,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  solution  of  it,  on  the 
other,  concur  in  establishing  our  doctrine,  that  by  the  ap- 
pointment of  God  himself,  the  infants  of  believing  parents 
are  born  members  of  his  church."* 

10.  Finally ;  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church  from 
the  apostolic  age,  furnishes  an  argument  of  irresistible  force 
in  favour  of  the  divine  authority  of  infant  baptism. 

I  can  assure  you,  my  friends,  with  the  utmost  candour  and 
confidence,  after  much  careful  inquiry  on  the  subject,  that, 
for  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years  after  the  birth  of  Christ, 
there  was  not  a  single  society  of  professmg  Christians  on 
earth,  who  opposed  infant  baptism  on  any  thing  like  the 
grounds  which  distinguish  our  modem  Baptist  brethren.  It 
is  an  undoubted  fact,  that  the  people  known  in  ecclesiastical 
history  under  the  name  of  the  Anabaptists,  who  arose  in  Ger- 
many, in  the  year  1522,  were  the  very  first  body  of  people, 
in  the  whole  Christian  world,  who  rejected  the  baptism  of 
infants,  on  the  principles  now  adopted  by  the  Antipcedobap- 
tist  body.  This,  I  am  aware,  will  be  regarded  as  an  unten- 
able position  by  some,  of  the  ardent  friends  of  the  Baptist 
cause  ;  but  nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  it  is  even 

*  Essays  on  the  Church  of  God,  by  Dr.  J.  M.  xMason.  Christian's 
Magazine,  ii.  49, 50. 

3*  18* 


22  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

SO.     Of  this  a  short  induction  of  particulars  will  afford  con 
elusive  evidence. 

Tertullian,  ahout  two  hundred  years  after  the  birth  of 
Christ,  is  the  first  man  of  whom  we  read  in  ecclesiastical 
history,  as  speaking  a  word  against  infant  baptism ;  and  he, 
while  he  recognises  the  existence  and  prevalence  of  the  prac- 
tice, and  expressly  recommends  that  infants  be  baptized,  if 
they  are  not  likely  to  survive  the  period  of  infancy ;  yet  ad- 
vises that,  where  there  is  a  prospect  of  their  living,  baptism 
be  delayed  until  a  late  period  in  life.  But  what  was  the 
reason  of  this  advice  ?  The  moment  we  look  at  the  reason, 
we  see  that  it  avails  nothing  to  the  cause  in  support  of  which 
it  is  sometimes  produced.  Tertullian  adopted  the  supersti- 
tious idea,  that  baptism  was  accompanied  with  the  remission 
of  all  past  sins  ;  and  that  sins  committed  after  baptism  were 
peculiarly  dangerous.  He,  therefore,  advised,  that  not  merely 
infants,  but  young  men  and  young  women ;  and  even  young 
widows  and  widowers  should  postpone  their  baptism  until 
the  period  of  youthful  appetite  and  passion  should  have  pass- 
ed. In  short,  he  advised  that,  in  all  cases  in  which  death 
was  not  likely  to  intervene,  baptism  be  postponed,  until  the 
subjects  of  it  should  have  arrived  at  a  period  of  life,  when 
they  would  be  no  longer  in  danger  of  being  led  astray  by 
youthful  lusts.  And  thus,  for  more  than  a  century  after  the 
age  of  Tertullian,  we  find  some  of  the  most  conspicuous  con- 
verts to  the  Christian  faith,  postponing  baptism  till  the  close 
of  life,  Constantine  the  Great,  we  are  told,  though  a  pro- 
fessing Christian  for  manj''  years  before,  was  not  baptized  till 
after  the  commencement  of  his  last  illness.  The  same  fact  is 
recorded  of  a  number  of  other  distinguished  converts  to  Chris- 
tianity, about  and  after  that  time.  But,  surely,  advice  and 
facts  of  this  kind  make  nothing  in  favour  of  the  system  of 
our  Baptist  brethren.  Indeed,  taken  altogether,  their  histori- 
cal bearing  is  strongly  in  favour  of  our  system. 

The  next  persons  that  we  hear  of  as  calling  in  question 
the  propriety  of  infant  baptism,  were  the  small  body  of  peo- 
ple in  France,  about  twelve  hundred  years  after  Christ,  who 
followed  a  certain  Peter  de  Bruis,  and  formed  an  inconsider- 
able section  of  the  people  known  in  ecclesiastical  history 
under  the  general  name  of  the  Waldenses.  This  body  main- 
tained that  infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized,  because  they  were 
incapable  of  salvation.  They  taught  that  none  could  be 
saved  but  those  who  wrought  out  their  salvation  by  a  long 
course  of  self-denial  and  labour.  And  as  infants  were  inca- 
pable of  thus  "  working  out  their  own  salvation,"  they  held 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  23 

that  making  them  the  subjects  of  a  sacramental  seal,  was  an 
absurdity.  But  surely  our  Baptist  brethren  cannot  be  willing 
to  consider  these  people  as  their  predecessors,  or  to  adopt 
their  creed. 

We  hear  no  more  of  any  society  or  organized  body  of 
intipoedobaptists,  until  the  sixteenth  century,  Avhen  they 
•irose,  as  before  stated,  in  Germany,  and  for  the  first  time 
broached  the  doctrine  of  our  modern  Baptist  brethren.  As 
far  as  I  have  been  able  to  discover,  they  were  absolutely  un- 
known in  the  whole  Christian  world,  before  that  time. 

But  we  have  something  more  than  mere  negative  testimony 
on  this  subject.  It  is  not  only  certain,  that  we  hear  of  no 
society  of  Antipcedobaptists  resembling  our  present  Baptist 
brethren,  for  more  than  fifteen  hundred  years  after  Christ ; 
but  we  have  positive  and  direct  proof  that,  during  the  whole 
of  that  time,  infant  baptism  was  the  general  and  unopposed 
practice  of  the  Christian  Church. 

To  say  nothing  of  earlier  intimations,  wholly  irreconcile- 
able  with  any  other  practice  than  that  of  infant  baptism, 
Origen,  a  Greek  father  of  the  third  century,  and  decidedly 
the  most  learned  man  of  his  day,  speaks  in  the  most  unequiv- 
ocal terms  of  the  baptism  of  infants,  as  the  general  practice 
of  the  church  in  his  time,  and  as  having  been  received  from 
the  Apostles.  His  testimony  is  as  foUows — "According  to 
the  usage  of  the  church,  baptism  is  given  even  to  infants ; 
when  if  there  were  nothing  in  infants  which  needed  forgive- 
ness and  mercy,  the  grace  of  baptism  would  seem  to  be  su- 
perfluous." (Homil.  VIII.  in  Levit.  ch.  12.)  Again  ;  "'  In- 
fants are  baptized  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins.  Of  what  sins  ? 
Or,  when  have  they  sinned  ?  Or,  can  there  be  any  reason 
for  the  laver  in  their  case,  unless  it  be  according  to  the  sense 
which  we  have  mentioned  above,  viz :  that  no  one  is  free 
from  pollution,  though  he  has  lived  but  one  day  upon  earth  ? 
And  because  by  baptism  native  pollution  is  taken  away,  there- 
fore infants  are  baptized."  (Homil.  in  Luc.  14.)  Again: 
"  For  this  cause  it  was  that  the  church  received  an  order  from 
the  Apostles  to  give  baptism  even  to  infants."* 

The  testimony  of  Cyprian,  a  Latin  Father  of  the  third 
century,  contemporary  with  Origen,  is  no  less  decisive.  It 
is  as  follows : 

In  the  year  253  after  Christ,  there  was  a  Council  of  sixty- 
six  bishops  or  pastors  held  at  Carthage,  in  which  Cyprian 
presided.     To  this   Council,  Fidus,  a  country  pastor,  pre- 

*  Comment,  in  Epist.  ad  Romano:^.  Lib.  5. 


24  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

seated  the  following  question,  which  he  wished  them,  by 
their  united  wisdom,  to  solve — viz.  Whether  it  was  neces- 
sary, in  the  administration  of  baptism,  as  of  circumcision,  to 
wait  until  the  eighth  day  ;  or  whether  a  child  might  be  bap- 
tized at  an  earlier  period  after  its  birth  ?  The  question,  it 
will  be  observed,  was  not  whether  infants  ought  to  be  bapti- 
zed ?  That  was  taken  for  granted.  But  simply,  whether  it 
was  necessary  to  wait  until  the  eighth  day  after  their  birth  1 
The  Council  came  unanimously  to  the  following  decision, 
and  transmitted  it  in  a  letter  to  the  inquirer. 

*'  Cyprian  and  the  rest  of  the  Bishops  who  were  present 
in  the  Council,  sixty-six  in  number,  to  Fidus,  our  brothei:, 
greeting : 

"  As  to  the  case  of  Infants, — whereas  you  judge  that  they 
must  not  be  baptized  within  two  or  three  days  after  they  are 
born,  and  that  the  rule  of  circumcision  is  to  be  observed,  that 
no  one  should  be  baptized  and  sanctified  before  the  eighth  day 
after  he  is  born  ;  we  were  all  in  the  Council  of  a  very  dif- 
ferent opinion.  As  for  what  you  thought  proper  to  be  done, 
no  one  was  of  your  mind;  but  we  all  rather  judged  that  the 
mercy  and  grace  of  God  is  to  be  denied  to  no  human  being 
that  is  born.  This,  therefore,  dear  brother,  was  our  opinion 
in  the  Council ;  that  we  ought  not  to  hinder  any  person  from 
baptism,  and  the  grace  of  God,  who  is  merciful  and  kind  to 
us  all.  And  this  rule,  as  it  holds  for  all,  we  think  more  es- 
pecially to  be  observed  in  reference  to  infants,  even  to  those 
newly  born."     (Cyprian,  Epist.  66.) 

Surely  no  testimony  can  be  more  unexceptionable  and  de- 
cisive than  this.  Lord  Chancellor  King,  in  his  account  oi 
the  primitive  church,  after  quoting  what  is  given  above,  and 
much  more,  subjoins  the  following  remark-—"  Here,  then  is 
a  synodical  decree  for  the  baptism  of  infants,  as  formal  as 
can  possibly  be  expected ;  which  being  the  judgment  of  a 
synod,  is  more  authentic  and  cogent  than  that  of  a  private 
father ;  it  being  supposable  that  a  private  father  might  write 
his  own  particular  judgment  and  opinion  only ;  but  the  de- 
termination of  a  synod  (and  he  might  have  added,  the  unani- 
mous determination  of  a  synod  of  sixty-six  members)  de- 
notes the  common  practice  and  usage  of  the  whole  church."* 

The  Famous  Chrysostom,  a  Greek  father,  who  flourished 
towards  the  close  of  the  fourth  century,  having  had  occasion 
to  speak  of  circumcision,  and  of  the  inconvenience  and  pain 
which  attended  its  dispensation,  proceeds  to  say — "  But  our 

*  Inquiry  into  the  Constitution,  &c.  Part  II.  Chap.  8. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  25 

circumcision,  I  mean  the  grace  of  baptism^  gives  cure  with- 
out pain,  and  procures  to  us  a  thousand  benefits,  and  fills  us 
with  the  grace  of  the  Spirit ;  and  it  has  no  determinate  time, 
as  that  had  ;  but  one  that  is  in  the  very  beginning  of  his  age, 
or  one  that  is  in  the  middle  of  it,  or  one  that  is  in  his  old  age, 
maj'  receive  this  circumcision  made  without  hands ;  in  which 
there  is  no  trouble  to  be  undergone  but  to  throw  off  the  load 
of  sins,  and  to  receive  pardon  for  all  past  offences."  (Ho* 
mil.  40.  in  Genesin.) 

Passing  by  the  testimony  of  several  other  conspicuous 
writers  of  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  in  support  of  the 
fact,  that  infant  baptism  was  generally  practised  when  they 
wrote,  I  shall  detain  you  with  only  one  testimony  more  in  re- 
lation to  the  history  of  this  ordinance.  It  is  that  of  Augus- 
tine, one  of  the  most  pious,  learned  and  venerable  fathers  o^ 
the  Christian  Church,  who  lived  a  little  more  than  thre'* 
hundred  years  after  the  Apostles, — taken  in  connexion  with 
that  of  Pelagius,  the  learned  heretic,  who  lived  at  the  samr 
time.  Augustine  had  been  pleading  against  Pelagius,  in  fa 
vour  of  the  doctrine  of  original  sin.  In  the  course  of  thL* 
plea,  he  asks — "  Why  are  infants  baptized  for  the  remission 
of  sins,  if  they  have  no  sin?"  -At  the  same  time  intimating 
to  Pelagius,  that  if  he  would  be  consistent  with  himself,  his 
denial  of  original  sin  must  draw  after  it  the  denial  of  infant 
baptism.  The  reply  of  Pelagius  is  striking  and  unequivocal. 
"  Baptism,"  says  he,  "  ought  to  be  administered  to  infants, 
with  the  same  sacramental  words  which  are  used  in  the  case 
of  adult  persons."—"  Men  slander  me  as  if  I  denied  the  sac- 
rament of  baptism  to  infants." — "  I  never  heard  of  any,  not 
even  the  most  impious  heretic,  who  denied  baptism  to  in- 
fants; for  who  can  be  so  impious  as  to  hinder  infants  from 
being  baptized,  and  born  again  in  Christ,  and  so  make  them 
miss  of  the  kingdom  of  God  ?"  Again :  Augustine  remarks, 
in  reference  to  the  Pelagians — "  Since  they  grant  that  infants 
must  be  baptized,  as  not  being  able  to  resist  the  authority  of 
the  whole  church,  ivhich  was  doubtless  delivered  by  our  Lord 
and  his  Apostles)  they  must  consequently  grant  that  they 
stand  in  need  of  the  benefit  of  the  Mediator;  that  being 
offered  by  the  sacrament,  and  by  the  charity  of  the  faithful, 
and  so  being  incorporated  into  Christ's  body,  they  may  be 
reconciled  to  God,"  &c.  Again,  speaking  of  certain  heretics 
at  Carthage,  who,  though  they  acknowledged  infant  baptism, 
took  wrong  views  of  its  meaning,  Augustine  remarks — "They, 
minding  the  Scriptures,  and  the  authority  of  the  whole 
church,  and  the  form  of  the  sacrament  itself,  see  well  that 


26  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

baptism  in  infants  is  for  the  remission  of  sins."  Further,  in 
his  work  against  the  Donatists,  the  same  writer  speaking  of 
baptized  infants  obtaining  salvation  without  the  personal  ex- 
ercise of  faith,  he  says—"  which  the  whole  body  of  the 
church  holds,  as  delivered  to  them  in  the  case  of  little  infants 
baptized  ;  who  certainly  cannot  believe  with  the  heart  unto 
righteousness,  or  confess  with  the  mouth  unto  salvation,  nay, 
by  their  crying  and  noise  while  the  sacrament  is  administer- 
ing, they  disturb  the  holy  mysteries :  and  yet  no  Christian 
man  will  say  that  they  are  baptized  to  no  purpose."  Again, 
he  says — "  The  custom  of  our  mother  the  church  in  bapti- 
zing infants  must  not  be  disregarded,  nor  be  accounted  need- 
less, nor  believed  to  be  any  thing  else  than  an  ordinance  de- 
livered to  us  from  the  Afostlesj'^  In  short,  those  who  will 
be  at  the  trouble  to  consult  the  large  extracts  from  the  writings 
of  Augustine,  among  other  Christian  fathers,  in  the  learned 
fVaWs  history  of  Infant  Baptism,  will  find  that  venerable 
father  declaring  again  and  again  that  he  never  met  with  any 
Christian,  either  of  the  general  church,  or  of  any  of  the  sects, 
nor  with  any  writer,  who  owned  the  authority  of  Scripture, 
who  taught  any  other  doctrine  than  that  infants  were  to  be 
baptized  for  the  remission  ©f  sin.  Here,  then,  were  two 
men,  undoubtedly  among  the  most  learned  then  in  the  world 
— Augustine  and  Pelagius ;  the  former  as  familiar  probably 
with  the  writings  of  all  the  distinguished  fathers  who  had 
gone  before  him,  as  any  man  of  his  time ;  the  latter  also  a 
man  of  great  learning  and  talents,  who  had  travelled  over  the 
greater  part  of  the  Christian  world  ;  who  both  declare,  about 
three  hundred  years  after  the  apostolic  age,  that  they  never 
saw  or  heard  of  any  one  who  called  himself  a  Christian,  not 
even  the  most  impious  heretic,  no  nor  any  writer  who  claim- 
ed to  believe  in  the  Scriptures,  who  denied  the  baptism  of 
infants.  (See  Wall's  History,  Part  I.  ch.  15—19.)  Can  the 
most  incredulous  reader,  who  is  not  fast  bound  in  the  fetters 
of  invincible  prejudice,  hesitate  to  admit,  first,  that  these  men 
verily  believed  that  infant  baptism  had  been  the  universal  prac- 
tice of  the  church  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  ;  and, 
secondly,  that,  situated  and  informed  as  they  were,  it  was  im- 
possible that  they  should  be  mistaken. 

The  same  Augustine,  in  his  Epistle  to  Boniface,  while  he 
expresses  an  opinion  that  the  parents  are  the  proper  persons 
to  offer  up  their  children  to  God  in  baptism,  if  they  be  good 
faithful  Christians  ;  yet  thinks  proper  to  mention  that  others 
may,  with  propriety,  in  special  cases,  perform  the  same  kind 
office  of  Christian  charity.     "  You  see,"  says  he,  "  that  a 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  27 

great  many  are  offered,  not  by  their  parents,  but  by  any  other 
persons,  as  infant  slaves  are  sometimes  offered  by  their  mas- 
ters. And  sometimes  when  the  parents  are  dead,  the  infants 
are  baptized,  being  offered  by  any  that  can  afford  to  show 
this  compassion  on  them.  And  sometimes  infants  whom 
their  parents  have  cruelly  exposed,  may  be  taken  up  and 
offered  in  baptism  by  those  who  have  no  children  of  their 
own,  nor  design  to  have  any."  Again,  in  his  book  against 
the  Donatists,  speaking  directly  of  infant  baptism,  he  says — 
*'  If  any  one  ask  for  divine  authority  in  this  matter,  although 
that  which  the  whole  church  practises,  which  was  not  insti- 
tuted by  councils,  but  was  ever  in  use,  is  very  reasonably 
believed  to  be  no  other  than  a  thing  delivered  by  the  authority 
of  the  Apostles ;  yet  we  may  besides  take  a  true  estimate, 
how  much  the  sacrament  of  baptism  does  avail  infants,  by  the 
circumcision  which  God's  ancient  people  received.  For 
Abraham  was  justified  before  he  received  circumcision,  as 
Cornelius  was  endued  with  the  Holy  Spirit  before  he  was 
baptized.  And  yet  the  apostle  says  of  Abraham,  that  he  re- 
ceived the  sign  of  circumcision, '  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  faith,'  by  which  he  had  in  heart  believed,  and  it  had  been 
*  counted  to  him  for  righteousness.'  Why  then  was  he 
commanded  to  circumcise  all  his  male  infants  on  the  eighth 
day,  when  they  could  not  yet  believe  with  the  heart,  that  it 
might  be  counted  to  them  for  righteousness ;  but  for  this 
reason,  because  the  sacrament  is,  in  itself  of  great  impor- 
tance? Therefore,  as  in  Abraham,  'the  righteousness  of 
faith'  went  before,  and  circumcision,  '  the  seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith  came  after ;'  so  in  Cornelius,  the  spiritual 
sanctification  by  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  went  before,  and 
the  sacrament  of  regeneration,  by  the  laver  of  baptism,  came 
after.  And  as  in  Isaac,  who  was  circumcised  the  eighth  day, 
the  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith  went  before,  and  (as  he 
was  a  follower  of  his  father's  faith)  the  righteousness  itself, 
the  seal  whereof  had  gone  before  in  his  infancy,  came  after ; 
so  in  infants  baptized,  the  sacrament  of  regeneration  goes 
before,  and  (if  they  put  in  practice  the  Christian  religion)  con- 
version of  the  heart,  the  mystery  whereof  went  before  in 
their  body,  comes  after.  By  all  which  it  appears,  that  the 
sacrament  of  baptism  is  one  thing,  and  conversion  of  the 
heart  another." 

So  much  for  the.  testimony  of  the  Fathers.     To  me,  I 

acknowledge,  this  testimony  carries  with  it  irresistible  con- 

'  viction.     It  is,  no  doubt,  conceivable,  considered  in  itself,  that 

in  three  centuries  from  the  days  of  the  apostles,  a  very  mate- 


28  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

rial  change  might  have  taken  place  in  regard  to  the  subjects 
of  baptism.  But  that  a  change  so  serious  and  radical  as  that 
of  which  our  Baptist  brethren  speak,  should  have  been  intro- 
duced without  the  knowledge  of  such  men  as  have  been  just 
quoted,  is  7iot  conceivable.  That  the  church  should  have 
passed  from  the  practice  of  none  but  adult  baptism,  to  that 
of  the  constant  and  universal  baptism  of  infants,  while  such 
a  change  was  utterly  unknown,  and  never  heard  of,  by  the 
most  active,  pious,  and  learned  men  that  lived  during  that 
period,  cannot,  I  must  believe,  be  imagined  by  any  impartial 
mind.  Now  when  Origen,  Cyprian,  and  Chrysostom,  de- 
clare, not  only  that  the  baptism  of  infants  was  the  universal 
and  unopposed  practice  of  the  church  in  their  respective 
times  and  places  of  residence ;  and  when  men  of  so  much 
acquaintance  with  all  preceding  writers,  and  so  much 
knowledge  of  all  Christendom,  as  Augustine  and  Pelagius, 
declared  that  they  never  heard  of  any  one  who  claimed  to 
he  a  Christian^  either  orthodox  or  heretic,  who  did  not 
maintain  and  practice  infant  baptism;  I  say,  to  suppose, 
in  the  face  of  such  testimony,  that  the  practice  of  infant  bap- 
tism crept  in,  as  an  unwarranted  innovation,  between  their 
time  and  that  of  the  apostles,  without  the  smallest  notice  of 
the  change  having  ever  reached  their  ears  is,  I  must  be  al- 
lowed to  say,  of  all  incredible  suppositions,  one  of  the  most 
incredible.  He  who  can  believe  this,  must,  it  appears  to 
me,  be  prepared  to  make  a  sacrifice  of  all  historical  evidence 
at  the  shrine  of  blind  and  deaf  prejudice. 

It  is  here  also  worthy  of  particular  notice,  that  those 
pious  and  far  famed  witnesses  for  the  truth,  commonly 
known  by  the  name  of  the  fValdenses,  did  undoubtedly  hold 
the  doctrine  of  infant  baptism,  and  practise  accordingly.  In 
their  Confessions  of  Faith  and  other  writings,  drawn  up  be- 
tween the  twelfth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  and  in  which  they 
represent  their  creeds  and  usages  as  handed  down,  from  father 
to  son,  for  several  hundred  years  before  the  Reformation,  they 
speak  on  the  subject  before  us  so  frequenriy  and  explicitly, 
as  to  preclude  aU  doubt  in  regard  to  the  fact  alleged.  The 
following  specimen  of  their  language  will  satisfy  every  rea- 
sonable inquirer. 

"  Baptism,"  say  they,  is  administered  in  a  fall  congrega- 
tion of  the  faithful,  to  the  end  that  he  that  is  received  into 
the  church  may  be  reputed  and  held  of  all  as  a  Christian 
brother,  and  that  all  the  congregation  may  pray  for  him  that 
he  may  be  a  Christian  in  heart,  as  he  is  outwardly  esteemed 
to  be  a  Christian.     And  for  this  cause  it  is  that  we  present 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  29 

our  children  in  baptism,  which  ought  to  be  done  by  those  to 
whom  the  children  are  most  nearly  related,  such  as  their 
parents,  or  those  to  whom  God  has  given  this  charity." 

Again;  referring  to  the  superstitious  additions  to  baptism 
which  the  Papists  had  introduced,  they  say,  in  one  of  their 
ecclesiastical  documents, — "The  things  which  are  not  ne- 
cessary in  baptism  are,  the  exorcisms,  the  breathings,  the 
sign  of  th«  cross  upon  the  head  or  forehead  of  the  infant,  the 
salt  put  into  the  mouth,  the  spittle  into  the  ears  and  nostrils, 
the  unction  of  the  breast,  &;c.  From  these  things  many 
take  an  occasion  of  error  and  superstition,  rather  than  of 
edifying  and  salvation." 

Understanding  that  their  Popish  neighbours  charged  them 
with  denying  the  baptism  of  infants,  they  acquit  themselves 
of  this  imputation  as  follows  : 

"  Neither  is  the  time  nor  place  appointed  for  those  who 
are  to  be  baptized.  But  charity  and  the  edification  of  the 
church  and  congregation  ought  to  be  the  rule  in  this  matter. 

"Yet,  notwithstanding,  we  bring  our  children  to  be  bap- 
tized; which  they  ought  to  do  to  whom  they  are  most  near- 
ly related ;  such  as  their  parents,  or  those  whom  God  hath 
inspired  with  such  a  charity." 

"  True  it  is,"  adds  the  historian,  "  that  being,  for  some 
hundreds  of  years,  constrained  to  suffer  their  children  to  be 
baptized  by  the  Romish  priests,  they  deferred  the  perfor- 
mance of  it  as  long  as  possible,  because  they  detested  the 
human  inventions  annexed  to  the  institution  of  that  holy  sa- 
crament, which  they  looked  upon  as  so  many  pollutions  of 
it.  And  by  reason  of  their  pastors,  whom  they  called  Bar- 
bes,  being  often  abroad  travelling  in  the  service  of  the 
church,  they  could  not  have  baptism  administered  to  their 
children  by  them.  They,  therefore,  sometimes  kept  them 
long  without  it.  On  account  of  which  delay,  the  priests 
have  charged  them  with  that  reproach.  To  which  charge 
not  only  their  adversaries  have  given  credit,  but  also  many 
of  those  who  have  approved  of  their  lives  and  faith  in  all 
other  respects^* 

*  See  John  Paul  Perrin's  account  of  the  Doctrine  and  Order  of  the 
Waldenses  and  Albigenses;  Sir  Samuel  Morland's  do.  j  and  also  Le- 
ger's  Histoire  Generale  des  Eglises  Vaudoises.  Mr.  William  Jones, 
a  Baptist,  in  a  work  entitled,  a  History  of  the  Waldenses,  in  two  vol- 
umes octavo,  professes  to  give  a  full  account  of  the  Faith  and  Order 
of  these  pious  witnesses  of  the  truth  ;  buty  so  far  as  I  have  observed, 
carefully  leaves  out  of  all  their  public  formularies  and  other  docu- 
ments,  every  thing  which  would  disclose  their  PcEdobaptist  principles 
and  practise  I     On  this  artifice  comment  is  unnecessary. 


30  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

It  being  so  plainly  a  fact,  established  by  their  own  un- 
equivocal and  repeated  testimony,  that  the  great  body  of  the 
Waldenses  were  Poedobaptists,  on  what  ground  is  it  that  our 
Baptist  brethren  assert,  and  that  some  have  been  found  to 
credit  the  assertion,  that  those  venerable  witnesses  of  the 
truth  rejected  the  baptism  of  infants?  The  answer  is  easy 
and  ample.  A  small  section  of  the  people  bearing  the  gene- 
ral name  of  Waldenses,  followers  of  Peter  de  Bruis,  who 
were  mentioned  in  a  preceding  page,  while  they  agreed 
with  the  mass  of  their  denomination  in  most  other  matters, 
differed  from  them  in  regard  to  the  subject  of  infant  baptism. 
They  held,  as  before  stated,  that  infants  were  not  capable  of 
salvation ;  that  Christian  salvation  is  of  such  a  nature  that 
none  can  partake  of  it  but  those  who  undergo  a  course  of 
rigorous  self-denial  and  labour  in  its  pursuit.  Those  who 
die  in  infancy  not  being  capable  of  this,  the  Petrobrussians 
held  that  they  were  not  capable  of  salvation ;  and,  this  being 
the  case,  that  they  ought  not  to  be  baptized.  This,  how- 
ever, is  not  the  doctrine  of  our  Baptist  brethren ;  and,  of 
course,  furnishes  no  support  to  their  creed  or  practice.  But 
the  decisive  answer  is,  that  the  Petrobrussians  were  a  very 
small  fraction  of  the  great  Waldensian  body;  probably  not 
more  than  a  thirtieth  or  fortieth  part  of  the  whole.  The 
great  mass  of  the  denomination,  however,  as  such,  declare,  in 
their  Confessions  of  Faith,  and  in  various  public  documents, 
that  they  held,  and  that  their  fathers  before  them,  for  many 
generations,  always  held,  to  infant  baptism.  The  Petro- 
brussians, in  this  respect,  forsook  the  doctrine  and  practice 
of  their  fathers,  and  departed  from  the  proper  and  established 
Waldensian  creed.  If  there  be  truth  in  the  plainest  records 
of  ecclesiastical  history,  this  is  an  undoubted  fact.  In  short 
the  real  state  of  this  case  may  be  illustrated  by  the  following 
representation.  Suppose  it  were  alleged  that  the  Baptists  in 
the  United  States  are  in  the  habit  of  keeping  the  seventh  day 
of  the  week  as  their  Sabbath?  Would  the  statement  be 
true  ?  By  no  means.  There  is,  indeed,  a  small  section  of 
the  Antipoedobaptist  body  in  the  United  States,  usually  sty- 
led "  Seventh  day  Baptists" — probably  not  a  thirtieth  part  of 
the  whole  body — who  observe  Saturday  in  each  week  as 
their  Sabbath.  But,  notwithstanding  this,  the  proper  repre- 
sentation, no  doubt  is, — (the  only  representation  that  a  faith- 
ful historian  of  facts  would  pronounce  correct) — that  the 
Baptists  in  this  country,  as  a  general  body,  observe  "  the 
Lord's  day"  as  their  Sabbath.  You  may  rest  assured,  my 
friends,  that  this  statement  most  exactly  illustrates  the  real 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  31 

fact  with  regard  to  the  Waldenses  as  Posdobaptists.  Twenty- 
nine  parts,  at  least,  out  of  thirty,  of  the  whole  of  that  body 
of  witnesses  for  the  truth,  were  undoubtedly  PcEdobaptists. 
The  remaining  thirtieth  part  departed  from  the  faith  of  their 
fathers  in  regard  to  baptism,  but  departed  on  principles  alto- 
gether unlike  those  of  our  modern  Baptist  brethren. 

I  have  only  one  fact  more  to  state  in  referenee  to  the 
pious  Waldenses,  and  that  is,  that  soon  after  the  opening  of 
the  Reformation  by  Luther,  they  sought  intercourse  with 
the  Reformed  churches  of  Geneva  and  France ;  held  commu- 
nion with  them  ;  received  ministers  from  them  ;  and  appear- 
ed eacrer  to  testify  their  respect  and  affection  for  them  as 
*' brethren  in  the  Lord."  Now  it  is  well  known  that  the 
churches  of  Geneva  and  France,  at  this  time,  were  in  the 
habitual  use  of  infant  baptism.  This  single  fact  is  sufficient 
to  prove  that  the  Waldenses  were  Pcsdobaptists.  If  they 
had  adopted  the  doctrine  of  our  Baptist  brethren,  and  laid 
the  same  stress  on  it  with  them,  it  is  manifest  that  such 
intercourse  would  have  been  wholly  out  of  the  question. 

If  these  historical  statements  be  correct,  and  that  they  are 
so,  is  just  as  well  attested  as  any  facts  whatever  in  the  annals 
of  the  church,  the  amount  of  the  whole  is  conclusive,  is  de- 
monstrative, that,  for  fifteen  hundred  years  after  "Christ,  the 
practice  of  infant  baptism  was  universal ;  that  to  this  general 
fact  there  was  absolutely  no  exception,  in  the  whole  Chris- 
tian church,  which,  on  principle,  or  even  analogy,  can  coun- 
tenance in  the  least  degree,  modern  Anti-poedobaptism  ;  that 
from  the  time  of  the  Aposdes  to  the  time  of  Luther,  the  gene- 
ral, unopposed,  established  practice  of  the  church  was  to  re- 
gard the  infant  seed  of  believers  as  members  of  the  church, 
and,  as  such,  to  baptize  them. 

But  this  is  not  all.  If  the  doctrine  of  our  Baptist  brethren 
be  correct ;  that  is,  if  infant  baptism  be  a  corruption  and  a 
nullity  ;  then  it  follows,  from  the  foregoing  histoiical  state- 
ments, most  inevitably,  that  the  ordinance  of  baptism  was  lost 
for  fifteen  hundred  years  :  yes,  entirely  lost,  from  the  apos- 
tolic age  till  the  sixteenth  century.  For  there  was  manifestly, 
"  no  society,  during  that  long  period,  of  fifteen  centuries,  but 
what  was  in  the  habit  of  baptizing  infants."  God  had  no 
church,  then,  in  the  world  for  so  long  a  period!  Can  this 
be  admitted  ?  Surely  not  by  any  one  who  believes  in  the 
perpetuity  and  indestructibility  of  the  household  of  faith. 

Nay,  if  the  principle  of  our  Baptist  brethren  be  correct, 
the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  irrecoverably  lost  altogether  ; 
that  is,  irrecoverably  without  a  miracle.     Because  if,  during 


32  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

the  long  tract  of  time  that  his  been  mentioned,  there  was  no 
true  baptism  in  the  church  ;  and  if  none  but  baptized  persons 
were  capable  of  administering  true  baptism  to  others?  the 
consequence  is  plain;  there  is  no  true  baptism  now  in  the 
world  !  But  can  this  be  believed  ?  Can  we  imagine  that  the 
great  Head  of  the  Church  would  permit  one  of  his  own  pre- 
cious ordinances  to  be  banished  entirely  from  the  church  for 
many  centuries,  much  less  to  be  totally  lost  ?  Surely  the 
thought  is  abhorrent  to  every  Christian  feeling. 

Such  is  an  epitome  of  the  direct  evidence  in  favour  of  in 
fant  baptism.  To  me,  I  acknowledge,  it  appears  nothing 
short  of  demonstration.  The  invariable  character  of  all  Je- 
hovah's dealings  and  covenants  with  the  children  of  men ; 
his  express  appointment,  acted  upon  for  two  thousand  years 
by  the  ancient  church ;  the  total  silence  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment as  to  any  retraction  or  repeal  of  this  privilege  ;  the  evi- 
dent and  repeated  examples  of  family  baptism  in  the  apostolic 
age ;  the  indubitable  testimony  of  the  practice  of  the  whole 
church  on  the  Poedobaptist  plan,  from  the  time  of  the  apos- 
tles to  the  sixteenth  century,  including  the  most  respectable 
witnesses  for  the  truth  in  the  dark  ages ;  all  conspire  to  es- 
tabhsh  on  the  firmest  foundation,  the  membership,  and  the 
consequent  right  to  baptism  of  the  infant  seed  of  believers. 
If  here  be  no  divine  warrant,  we  may  despair  of  finding  it 
for  any  institution  in  the  Church  of  God. 


DISCOURSE  II. 

OBJECTIONS   ANSWERED. 

"And  when  she  was  baptized,  and  her  household,  she  besought  us  say 
ing — if  ye  have  judged  me  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  come  into  mine 
house,  and  abide  there." — Act7 x\i.l5. 

Having  adduced,  in  the  preceding  discourse^  the  direct 
evidence  in  support  of  Infant  Baptism,  let  us  now  attend  to 
some  of  the  most  common  and  popular  objections,  brought 
by  our  Baptist  brethren,  against  the  doctrine  which  we  have 
attempted  to  establish.     And, 

1 .  The  first  is,  that  we  have  no  direct  warrant  in  the  New 
Testament,  in  so  many  words,  for  Infant  Baptism.  "  We 
are  no  where,"  say  our  opponents,  "  in  the  histor\'  of  the 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  33 

apostolic  age,  told,  in  express  terms,  either  that  infants  ought 
to  be  baptized,  or  that  they  were,  in  fact,  baptized.  Now  is 
it  possible  to  account  for  this  omission  on  the  supposition  that 
such  baptism  was  generally  practised?"  This  objection  has 
been  urged  a  thousand  times,  with  great  confidence,  and  with 
no  inconsiderable  effect,  on  the  minds  of  soms  serious  persons 
of  small  knowledge,  and  of  superficial  thought.  But  when 
thoroughly  examined,  it  wiU,  I  am  persuaded,  appear  desti- 
tute of  all  solid  foundation. 

For,  in  the  first  place,  even  if  it  were  as  our  Baptist  breth 
ren  suppose  ;  that  is,  even  if  no  express  warrant,  in  so  many 
words,  were  found  in  the  New  Testament,  authorizing  and 
directing  infant  baptism,  could  this  reasonably  be  considered, 
upon  Poedobaptist  principles,  unaccountable,  or  even  wonder- 
ful ?  The  Poedobaptist  principle,  let  it  be  borne  in  mind,  is, 
that  the  church  under  the  New  Testament  economy  is  the 
same  with  the  church  under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation ; 
that  the  former  was  the  minority  or  childhood,  the  latter  the 
maturity  of  the  visible  kingdom  of  the  Messiah ;  that  one  of 
the  most  striking  features  in  the  New  Testament  character  of 
this  kingdom  is,  a  great  increase  of  light,  and  enlargement  of 
privilege  ;  that  the  infant  seed  of  believers  had  been  bom  in 
covenant  with  God,  and  their  covenanted  character  marked 
and  ratified  by  a  covenant  seal,  for  two  thousand  years  before 
Christ  appeared ;  and  that,  if  this  privilege  had  been  inten- 
ded simply  to  be  continued,  no  new  enactment  was  necessary 
to  ascertain  this  intention,  but  merely  allowing  it  to  proceed 
without  interposing  any  change.  This  is  the  ground  we  take. 
Now,  taking  this  ground ;  assuming  as  facts  what  have  been 
just  stated  as  such,  can  any  thing  be  more  perfectly  natural 
than  the  whole  aspect  of  the  New  Testament  in  relation  to 
this  subject?  Very  little,  explicit  or  formal,  is  said  in  refer- 
ence to  the  covenant  standing  of  children,  on  the  opening  of 
the  new  economy,  simply  because  no  material  alteration  as  to 
this  point,  was  intended.  All  the  first  Christians  having  been 
bred  under  the  Jewish  economy,  and  having  been  always  ac- 
customed to  the  enjoyment  of  its  privileges,  would,  of  course, 
expect  those  privileges  to  be  continued,  especially,  if  nothing 
were  said  about  their  repeal  or  abridgement.  To  announce 
to  these  Jewish  believers,  that  the  covenant  standing,  and 
covenant  advantages  of  their  beloved  children,  were  not  to  be 
withdrawn  or  curtailed,  if  no  other  alteration  in  reference  tc 
this  matter,  than  an  increase  of  privilege  were  intended,  would 
have  been  just  as  unnecessary  as  to  inform  them  that  the  true 
God  was  still  to  be  worshipped,  and  the  atoning  sacrifice  of 

4*  19* 


34  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

the  Messiah  still  regarded  as  the  only  gi'ound  of  hope.  In 
short,  assuming  Poedobaptist  principles,  we  might  expect  the 
New  Testament  to  exhibit  precisely  the  aspect  which  it  does 
exhibit.  Not  to  say,  in  so  many  words,  that  the  privilege  in 
question  was  to  be  continued ;  but  all  along  to  speak  as  if 
this  were  to  be  taken  for  granted,  without  an  explicit  enact- 
ment ;  to  assure  the  first  Christians  that  "  the  promise  was 
still  to  them  and  their  children;"  and  not  to  them  only,  but 
also  to  "  as  many  as  the  Lord  their  God  should  call''  into  his 
visible  church  ;  to  tell  them  that,  in  regard  to  this  matter,  the 
administration  of  his  New  Testament  kingdom  was  to  be 
such  as  to  abolish  all  distinction  of  sex  in  Christian  privilege ; 
that,  in  Christ,  there  was  to  be  no  longer  a  difference  made 
between  "  male  and  female ;"  and,  in  conformity  with  this 
intimation,  and  as  practical  comment  upon  it,  to  introduce 
whole  families  with  the  converted  parents  into  the  church, 
by  the  appropriate  New  Testament  rite,  as  had  been  invaria- 
bly practised  under  the  Old  Testament  economy. 

But  now  turn,  for  a  moment,  to  the  opposite  supposition  ; 
to  that  of  our  Baptist  brethren.  They  are  obliged,  by  their 
system,  to  take  for  granted,  that,  after  the  children  of  the 
professing  people  of  God  had  been,  for  nearly  two  thousand 
years,  in  the  enjoyment  of  an  important  covenant  privilege; 
a  privilege  precious  in  itself,  and  peculiarly  dear  to  the  pa- 
rental heart ;  it  was  suddenly,  and  without  explanation,  set 
aside :  that  on  the  opening  of  the  New  Testament  dispensa- 
tion, a  dispensation  of  larger  promises,  and  of  increased 
liberality,  this  privilege  was  abruptly  and  totally  withdrawn ; 
that  children  were  ejected  from  their  former  covenant  rela- 
tion; that  they  were  no  longer  the  subjects  of  a  covenant 
seal,  or  of  covenant  promises ;  and  that  all  this  took  place 
without  one  hint  of  any  reason  for  it  being  given ;  without 
one  syllable  being  said,  in  all  the  numerous  epistles  to  the 
churches,  by  any  one  of  justification  or  apology,  for  so  im- 
portant a  change!  Nay,  that,  instead  of  such  notice  and 
explanation,  a  mode  of  expression,  under  the  new  economy, 
should  be  throughout  used,  corresponding  with  the  former 
practice,  and  adapted  still  to  convey  the  idea  that  both  pa- 
rents and  children  stood  in  their  old  relation,  notwithstanding 
the  painful  change !  Is  this  credible !  Can  it  be  believed 
by  any  one  who  is  not  predetermined  to  regard  it  as  true  ? 

But  if  the  New  Testament  economy  does  not  include  the 
church  membership  of  the  infant  seed  of  believers,  such  a 
change,  undoubtedly,  did  take  place,  on  the  coming  in  of 
the  new  economy.     The   Jewish   disciples  of  Christ  saw 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  35 

their  children  at  once  cut  off  from  the  covenant  of  promise, 
and  denied  its  appropriate  seal,  to  which  they  had  always 
been  accustomed,  and  in  which  the  tenderest  parental  feel- 
ings were  so  strongly  implicated.  Yet  we  hear  of  no  com- 
plaint on  their  part.  We  find  not  a  word  which  seems  in- 
tended to  explain  such  a  change,  or  to  allay  the  feelings  of 
those  parents  who  could  not  fail,  if  such  had  been  the  fact, 
both  to  feel  and  to  remonstrate. 

I  must  say,  my  friends,  that,  to  my  mind,  this  considera- 
tion, if  there  were  no  other,  is  conclusive.  Instead  of  our 
Baptist  brethren  having  a  right  to  call  upon  us  to  find  a  di- 
rect warrant  in  the  New  Testament,  in  favour  of  infant 
membership,  we  have  a  right  to  call  upon  them  to  produce 
a  direct  warrant  for  the  great  and  sudden  change  which  they 
allege  took  place.  If  it  be,  as  they  say,  that  the  New  Tes- 
tament is  silent  on  the  subject,  this  very  silence  is  quite 
sufficient  to  destroy  their  cause,  and  to  establish  ours.  It 
affords  proof  positive  that  no  such  change  as  that  which  is 
alleged  ever  occurred.  That  a  change  so  important  and  in- 
teresting should  have  been  introduced,  without  one  word  of 
explanation  or  apology  on  the  part  of  the  inspired  aposdes, 
and  without  one  hint  or  struggle  on  the  part  of  those  who 
had  enjoyed  the  former  privilege;  in  short,  that  the  old 
economy,  in  relation  to  this  matter,  should  have  been  entire- 
ly broken  up,  and  yet  the  whole  subject  passed  over  by  the 
inspired  writers  in  entire  silence,  is  surely  one  of  the  most 
incredible  things  that  can  well  be  imagined !  He  who  can 
believe  it,  must  have  a  mind  "fully  set  in  him"  to  embrace 
the  system  which  requires  it. 

So  much  on  the  supposition  assumed  by  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren, that  there  is  no  direct  warrant  in  the  New  Testament 
for  infant  membership,  and  of  course,  none  for  infant  bap- 
tism. Admitting  that  the  New  Testament  is  silent  on  the 
subject,  their  cause  is  ruined.  No  good  reason,  I  had  al- 
most said,  no  possible  reason,  can  be  assigned  for  such 
silence,  in  the  circumstances  in  which  the  Christian  church 
was  placed,  but  the  fact  that  things,  as  to  this  point,  were  to 
go  on  as  before.  That  the  old  privilege,  so  dear  to  the  pa- 
rent's heart,  was  to  receive  no  other  change  than  a  new  seal, 
less  burdensome;  applicable  equally  to  both  sexes;  in  a 
word,  recognising,  extending,  and  perpetuating  all  the  privi- 
leges which  they  had  enjoyed  before. 

But  it  cannot  be  admitted  that  the  New  Testament  con 
tains  no  direct  warrant  for  infant  membership.  The  testi- 
mony adduced  in  the  preceding  discourse  is  surely  worthy, 


36  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

to  say  the  least,  of  the  most  serious  regard.  When  the  Mas- 
ter himself  declares  concerning  infants,  "Of  such  is  the 
kingdom  of  heaven;"  when  an  inspired  apostle  proclaims — 
"The  promise  is  to  us  and  our  children;"  and  when  we 
plainly  see,  under  the  apostolical  administration  of  the 
church,  whole  families  received,  in  repeated  instances,  into 
the  church,  on  the  professed  faith  of  the  individuals  who 
were  constituted  their  respective  heads,  just  as  we  know  oc- 
curred under  the  old  economy,  when  the  membership  of  in- 
fants was  undisputed :  when  we  read  such  things  as  these  in 
the  New  Testament,  we  surely  cannot  complain  of  the  want 
of  testimony  which  ought  to  satisfy  every  reasonable  inqui- 
rer. 

2.  A  second  objection  often  urged  by  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren, is  drawn  from  what  they  insist  is  the  general  law  of 
positive  instifMtions.  "  In  cases  of  moral  duty,  say  they, 
we  are  at  liberty  to  argue  from  inference,  from  analogy,  from 
implication ;  but  in  regard  to  positive  institutions,  our  war- 
rant must  be  direct  and  positive.  Now,  as  we  nowhere  find 
in  the  New  Testament  any  positive  direction  for  baptizing 
infants,  the  general  law,  which  must  govern  in  all  cases  of 
positive  institution,  plainly  forbids  it.  Here  no  inferential 
reasoning  can  be  admitted." 

This  argument,  I  am  persuaded,  will  not  be  regarded  as 
forcible  by  any  who  examine  it  with  attention  and  impartiality. 
The  whole  principle  is  unsound.  The  fact  is,  inferential  rea- 
soning may  be,  and  is  in  many  cases,  quite  as  strong  as  any 
other.  Besides,  if  it  be  contended,  that  in  every  thing  rela- 
ting to  positive  institutes,  we  must  have  direct  and  positive 
precepts,  the  assumed  principle  will  prove  too  much. 

Upon  this  principle,  females  ought  never  to  partake  of  the 
Lord's  Supper ;  for  we  have  no  positive  precept,  and  no  ex- 
plicit example  in  the  New  Testament  to  warrant  them  in 
doing  so,  and  yet  our  Baptist  brethren,  forgetting  their  own 
principle,  unite  with  all  Christians  who  consider  the  sacra- 
mental supper  as  still  obligatory  on  the  church,  in  admitting 
females  to  its  participation.  This  practice  is,  no  doubt,  per- 
fectly right.  It  rests  on  the  most  solid  inferential  reasoning, 
which  may  be  just  as  strong  as  any  other,  and  which,  in  this 
case,  cannot  be  gainsayed  or  resisted.  But.  every  time  our 
Baptist  brethren  yield  to  this  reasoning,  and  act  accordingly, 
they  desert  their  assumed  principle. 

3.  A  third  objection  frequently  urged  is,  that  if  infant  bap- 
tism had  prevailed  in  the  primitive  church,  we  might  have 
expected  to  find  in  the  New  Testament  history  some  ex 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  37 

amples  of  the  children  of  professing  Christians  being  bapti- 
zed in  their  infancy.  Our  Baptist  brethren  remind  us  that 
the  New  Testament  history  embraces  a  period  of  more  than 
sixty  years  after  the  organization  of  the  church,  under  the 
new  economy.  "  Now,"  say  they,  "  during  this  long  period, 
if  the  principle  and  practice  of  infant  baptism  had  been  the 
law  of  the  church,  we  must,  in  all  probability,  have  found 
many  instances  recorded  of  the  baptism  of  the  children  of 
persons  already  in  the  communion  of  the  church.  Whereas, 
in  all  that  is  distinctly  recorded,  or  occasionally  hinted  at, 
concerning  the  churches  of  Jerusalem,  Antioch,  Corinth, 
Ephesus,  Rome,  Galatia,  Colosse,  &c.,  we  find  no  mention 
made  of  such  baptisms.  We,  therefore,  conclude  that  none 
such  occurred." 

This  objection,  when  examined,  will  be  found,  it  is  believ- 
ed, to  have  quite  as  little  weight  as  the  preceding.  The  prin- 
cipal object  of  the  New  Testament  history  is  to  give  an  ac- 
count of  the  progress  of  the  Gospel.  Hence  it  was  much 
more  to  the  purpose  of  the  sacred  writers  to  inform  us  re- 
specting the  conversions  to  Christianity,  from  Judaism  and 
Paganism,  than  to  dwell  in  detail  on  what  occurred  in  the 
bosom  of  the  church  itself.  Only  enough  is  said  on  the  lat- 
ter subject  to  trace  the  disturbances  which  occurred  in  the 
churches  to  their  proper  source,  and  to  render  intelligible  and 
impressive  the  various  precepts  in  relation  to  these  matters 
which  are  recorded  for  the  instruction  of  the  people  of  God 
in  all  ages.  Hence  all  the  cases  of  baptism  which  are  re- 
corded, are  cases  in  which  it  was  administered  to  converts 
from  Judaism  or  Paganism,  to  Christianity.  To  the  best 
of  my  recollection,  we  have  no  example  of  a  single  baptism 
of  any  other  kind.  Now  this,  upon  Poedobaptist  principles, 
is  precisely  what  might  have  been  expected.  In  giving  a 
history  of  such  churches,  who  would  think  of  singling  out 
cases  of  infant  baptism  ?  This  is  a  matter  so  much  of  course, 
and  of  every  day's  occurence,  that  it  is  in  no  respect  a  re- 
markable event,  and,  of  course,  could  not  be  expected  to  be 
recorded  as  such.  No  wonder,  then,  that  we  find  no  instance 
of  this  kind  specified  in  the  annals  of  the  apostolical  church. 

But  this  is  not  all.  There  is  connected  with  this  fact,  a 
still  more  serious  difficulty,  which  cannot  fail  of  bearing  with 
most  unfriendly  weight  on  the  Baptist  cause.  Though  it  is 
not  wonderful,  for  the  reason  just  mentioned,  that  we  read  of 
no  cases  of  infant  baptism,  among  the  Christian  families  of 
the  apostolical  age;  yet,  upon  Baptist  principles,  it  is  much 
more  difficult  to  be  accounted  for,  that  we  find  no  example  of 


38  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

persons  born  of  Christian  parents  being  baptized  in  adult 
agt.  Upon  those  principles,  the  children  of  professing 
Christians  bear  no  relation  to  the  church.  They  are  as  com- 
pletely "without"  as  the  children  of  Pagans  and  Mohamme- 
dans, until  by  faith  and  repentance  they  are  brought  within 
the  bond  of  the  covenant.  Their  being  converted  and  bap- 
tized, then,  we  might  expect  to  be  just  as  carefully  noticed, 
and  just  as  minutely  detailed,  as  the  conversion  and  baptism 
of  the  most  complete  "  aliens  from  the  commonwealth  of 
Israel."  Yet  the  fact  is,  that  during  the  whole  three  score 
years  after  the  ascension  of  Christ,  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment history  embraces,  we  have  no  hint  of  the  baptism  of 
any  infant  born  of  Christian  parents.  In  my  judgment  this 
fact  bears  very  strongly  in  favour  of  the  Poedobaptist  cause. 

4.  it  is  objected,  that  Jesus  Christ  himself  it  as  not  bap- 
tized until  he  was  thirty  years  of  age;  and,  therefore,  it  is 
inferred,  that  his  disciples  ought  not  to  be  baptized  until  they 
reach  adult  age.     To  this  objection  I  reply. 

(1.)  Christ  was  baptized  by  John.  Now,  it  is  certain,  that 
John's  Baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism ;  for  it  is  evident 
from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  (chap.  xix.  1 — 5.)  that  those 
who  were  baptized  by  John,  were  baptized  over  again,  "  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus."  Besides,  it  is  evident,  from  the 
whole  passage,  that  the  baptism  of  Christ  by  John  was  au 
essentially  different  thing  from  baptism  as  now  practised  in 
the  Christian  church.  The  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist  was 
a  dispensation,  if  we  may  say  so,  intermediate  between  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testament  economies.  And,  as  our  bles- 
sed Lord  thought  proper  to  "  fulfil  all  righteousness,"  he  sub- 
mitted to  the  baptismal  rite  which  marked  that  dispensation. 
Besides,  under  the  Old  Testament  economy,  when  the  High 
Priest  first  entered  on  his  holy  office,  he  was  solemnly  wash- 
ed with  water.  And  that  officer,  we  know,  was  wont  to 
come  to  the  discharge  of  his  functions  at  "  about  thirty  years 
of  age,"  the  very  age  at  which  our  Saviour  was  baptized,  and 
entered  on  his  public  ministry.  In  like  manner,  when  the 
*'  great  High  Priest  of  our  profession,"  Christ  Jesus,  entered 
on  his  public  ministry,  he  thought  proper  to  comply  with  the 
same  ceremony ;  that  he  might  accomplish  the  prophecy, 
and  fulfil  all  the  typical  representations  concerning  the  Savi- 
our, which  had  been  left  on  record  in  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures.  The  baptism  of  Christ,  then,  has  no  reference 
to  this  controversy,  and  cannot  be  made  to  speak  either  for  or 
against  our  practice  in  regard  to  this  ordinance.     But 

(2.)  If  this  argument  have  any  force,  it  proves  more  than 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  39 

our  Baptist  brethren  are  willing  to  allow,  viz :  that  no  per- 
son ought  to  be  baptized  under  thirty  years  of  age.  So  that 
even  a  real  Christian,  however  clear  his  evidences  of  faith  and 
repentance,  though  he  be  twenty,  twenty-Jive,  or  even  twenty- 
nine  years  of  age,  must  in  no  case  think  of  being  baptized 
until  he  has  reached  the  full  age  of  thirty.  A  consequence 
so  replete  with  absurdity,  that  the  simple  statement  of  it 
is  enough  to  insure  its  refutation. 

5.  A  fifth  objection  continually  made  by  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren is,  that  infants  are  not  capable  of  those  spiritual  acts  or 
exercises  which  the  New  Testament  requires  in  order  to  a 
proper  reception  of  the  ordinance  of  Baptism.  Thus  the 
language  of  the  New  Testament,  on  various  occasions  is — 
"  Repent,  and  be  baptized.  BeUeve,  and  be  baptized.  If 
thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou  mayest  be  baptized. 
They  that  gladly  received  the  word  were  baptized.  Many  of 
the  Corinthians,  having  believed,  were  baptized."  In  short, 
say  our  Baptist  brethren,  as  baptism  is  acknowledged  on  all 
hands  to  be  a  "  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith;"  and  as 
infants  are  altogether  incapable  of  exercising  faith  :  it  is,  of 
course,  not  proper  to  baptize  them. 

In  answer  to  this  objection,  my  first  remark  is,  that  all 
those  exhortations  to  faith  and  repentance,  as  prerequisites  to 
baptism,  which  we  find  in  the  New  Testament,  are  addressed 
to  adult  persons.  And  when  we  are  called  to  instruct  adult 
persons,  who  have  never  been  baptized,  we  always  address 
them  precisely  in  the  same  way  in  which  the  apostles  did. 
We  exhort  them  to  repent  and  believe,  and  we  say,  just  as 
Philip  said,  "If  thou  believest  with  all  thine  heart,  thou 
mayest  be  baptized."  But  this  does  not  touch  the  question 
respecting  the  infant  seed  of  believers.  It  only  shows  that 
when  adults  are  baptized,  such  a  qualification  is  to  be  urged, 
and  such  a  profession  required.  And  in  this,  all  Poedobap- 
tists  unanimously  agree. 

But  stiU,  our  Baptist  brethren,  unsatisfied  with  this  an- 
swer, insist,  that,  as  infants  are  not  capable  of  exercising 
faith ;  as  they  are  not  capable  of  acting  either  intelligently  or 
voluntarily  in  the  case  at  all,  they  cannot  be  considered  as 
the  proper  recipients  of  an  ordinance  which  is  represented 
as  a  "seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith."  This  objection  is 
urged  with  unceasing  confidence,  and  not  seldom  accompa- 
nied with  a  sneer  or  even  ridicule,  at  the  idea  of  applying  a 
covenant  seal  to  those  who  are  incapable  of  either  under- 
standing, or  giving  their  consent,  to  the  transaction.  It  is 
really,  my  friends,  enough   to  make  one  shudder  to  think 


40  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

how  often,  and  how  unceremoniously  language  of  this  kind 
is  emplojed  by  those  who  acknowledge  that  infants  of 
eight  days  old,  were  once,  and  that  by  express  Divine  ap- 
pointment, made  the  subjects  of  circumcision.  Now  cir- 
cumcision is  expressly  said  by  the  apostle  to  be  a  "  seal  of 
the  righteousness  of  faith,"  as  well  as  baptism.  But  were 
children  of  eight  days  old  then  capable  of  exercising  faith, 
when  they  were  circumcised,  more  than  they  are  now  when 
they  are  baptized  ?  Surely  the  objection  before  us  is  as 
valid  in  the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  And,  whether  our 
Baptist  brethren  perceive  it  or  not,  all  the  charges  of  "  ab- 
surdity" and  "  impiety"  which  they  are  so  ready  to  heap  on 
infant  baptism,  are  just  as  applicable  to  infant  circumcision 
as  to  infant  baptism.  Are  they,  then,  willing  to  say,  that 
the  application  of  a  "  seal  of  the  righteousness  of  faith"  to 
unconscious  infants,  of  eight  days  old,  who,  of  course,  could 
not  exercise  faith,  was,  under  the  old  economy,  preposte- 
rous and  absurd?  Are  they  prepared  thus  to  "charge  God 
foolishly  ?"  Yet  they  must  do  it,  if  they  would  be  consis- 
tent. They  cannot  escape  from  the  shocking  alternative. 
Every  harsh  and  contemptuous  epithet  which  they  apply  to 
infant  baptism,  must,  if  they  would  adhere  to  the  principles 
which  they  lay  down,  be  applied  to  infant  circumcision.  But 
that  which  unavoidably  leads  to  such  a  consequence  cannot 
be  warranted  by  the  word  of  God. 

After  all,  the  whole  weight  of  the  objection,  in  this  case, 
is  founded  on  an  entire  forgetfulness  of  the  main  principle  of 
the  Poedobaptist  system.  It  is  forgotten  that  in  every  case 
of  infant  baptism,  faith  is  required,  and,  if  the  parents  be 
sincere,  is  actually  exercised.  But  it  is  required  of  the  pa- 
rents, not  of  the  children.  So  that,  if  the  parent  really  pre- 
sent his  child  in  faith,  the  spirit  of  the  ordinance  is  entirely 
met  and  answered.  It  was  this  principle  which  gave  mea- 
ning and  legitimacy  to  the  administration  of  the  correspon- 
ding rite  under  the  old  dispensation.  It  was  because  the  pa- 
rents were  visibly  within  the  bond  of  the  covenant,  that  their 
children  were  entitled  to  the  same  blessed  privilege.  The 
same  principle  precisely  applies  under  the  New  Testament 
economy.  Nor  does  it  impair  the  force  of  this  considera- 
tion to  allege,  that  parents,  it  is  feared,  too  often  present 
their  children,  in  this  solemn  ordinance,  without  genuine 
faith.  It  is,  indeed,  probable  that  this  is  often  lamentably 
the  fact.  But  so  it  was,  we  cannot  doubt,  with  respect  to 
the  corresponding  ordinance,  under  the  old  dispensation. 
Yet  the  circumcision  was  neither  invalidated,  nor  rendered 


INFANT    BAPTISM.  41 

unmeaning,  by  this  want  of  sincerity  on  the  part  of  the  pa- 
rent. It  was  sufficient  for  the  visible  administration  that 
faith  was  visibly  professed.  When  our  Baptist  brethren  ad- 
minister the  ordinance  of  baptism  to  one  who  professes  to 
repent  and  believe,  but  who  is  not  sincere  in  this  profession, 
they  do  not  consider  his  want  of  faith  as  divesting  the  ordi- 
nance of  either  its  warrant  or  its  meaning.  The  administra- 
tion may  be  regular  and  scriptural,  while  the  recipient  is 
criminal,  and  receives  no  spiritual  benefit.  It  is,  in  every 
case,  the  profession  of  faith  which  gives  the  right,  in  the  eye 
of  the  church,  to  the  external  ordinance.  The  want  of  sin- 
cerity in  this  profession,  while  it  deeply  inculpates  the  hypo- 
critical individual,  affects  not  either  the  nature  or  the  warrant 
of  the  administration. 

6.  Again;  it  is  objected,  that  baptism  can  do  infants  no 
good.  "  Where,"  say  our  Baptist  brethren,  "  is  the  benefit 
of  it  ?  What  good  can  a  litde  '  sprinkling  with  water'  do  a 
helpless,  unconscious  babe  ?"  To  this  objection  I  might 
reply,  by  asking  in  my  turn — What  good  did  circumcision  do 
a  Jewish  child,  helpless  and  unconscious,  at  eight  days  old  1 
To  ask  the  question  is  almost  impious,  because  it  implies  an 
impeachment  of  infinite  wisdom.*  God  appointed  that  ordi- 
nance to  be  administered  to  infants.  And  accordingly,  when 
the  apostle  asked,  in  the  spirit  of  some  modern  cavillers,' 
"  What  profit  is  there  of  circumcision  ?"  He  replies,  much, 
every  way.  In  like  manner,  when  it  is  asked,  "  What  pro- 
fit is  there  in  baptizing  our  infant  children?"  I  answer, 
Much,  every  way.  Baptism  is  a  sign  of  many  important 
truths,  and  a  seal  of  many  important  covenant  blessings.  Is 
there  no  advantage  in  attending  on  an  ordinance  which  holds 
up  to  our  view,  in  the  most  impressive  symbolical  language, 
several  of  those  fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  which 
are  of  the  deepest  interest  to  us  and  our  offspring ;  such  as 
our  fallen,  guilty,  and  polluted  state  by  nature,  and  the 
method  appointed  by  infinite  wisdom  and  love  for  our  reco- 
very, by  the  atoning  blood,  and  cleansing  Spirit  of  the  Sa- 
viour ?  Is  there  no  advantage  in  solemnly  dedicating  our 
children  to  God  by  an  appropriate  rite,  of  his  own  appoint- 
ment ?  Is  there  no  advantage  in  formally  binding  ourselves, 
by  covenant  engagements,  to  bring  up  our  ofTspring  "  in  the 

*  A  grave  and  respectable  Baptist  minister,  in  the  course  of  an  argu- 
ment on  this  subject,  candidly  acknowledged  that  the  administration 
of  circumcision  to  an  infant  eight  days  old,  would  have  appeared  to 
him  a  useless,  and  even  a  silly  rite  !  An  honest,  and  certainly  a  very 
natural  confession. 

20  5 


42  IJVFANT  BAPTISM. 

nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord  ?"  Is  there  no  advantage 
in  publicly  ratifying  the  connection  of  our  children,  as  well 
as  ourselves,  with  the  visible  church,  and  as  it  were  binding 
them  to  an  alliance  with  the  God  of  their  fathers  ?  Is  there 
nothing,  either  comforting  or  useful  in  solemnly  recognising 
as  our  own  that  covenant  promise,  "  I  will  establish  my 
covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and  thy  seed  c^ter  thee,  to  be 
a  God  to  thee  and  thy  seed  after  thee?'''*  Is  it  a  step  of  no 
value  to  our  children  themselves,  to  be  brought,  by  a  divinely 
appointed  ordinance,  into  the  bosom,  and  to  the  notice,  the 
maternal  attentions,  and  the  prayers  of  the  church,  "  the  mo- 
ther of  us  all  ?"  And  is  it  of  no  advantage  to  the  parents,  in 
educating  their  children,  to  be  able  to  remind  them,  from 
:ime  to  time,  that  they  have  been  symbolically  sanctified,  or 
set  apart,  by  the  seal  of  Jehovah's  covenant,  and  to  plead 
with  them  by  the  solemn  vows  which  they  have  made  on  their 
behalf?  Verily,  my  dear  friends,  those  who  refuse  or  ne- 
glect the  baptism  of  their  children,  not  only  sin  against 
Christ  by  disobeying  his  solemn  command ;  but  they  also 
deprive  both  themselves  and  their  children  of  great  benefits. 
They  may  imagine  that,  as  it  is  a  disputed  point,  it  may  be. 
a  matter  of  indifference,  whether  their  children  receive  this 
ordinance  in  their  infancy,  or  grow  up  unbaptized.  But  is 
not  this  attempting  to  be  wiser  than  God  ?  I  do  not  profess 
to  know  all  the  advantages  attendant  or  consequent  on  the 
administi'ation  of  this  significant  and  divinely  appointed  rite ; 
but  one  thing  I  know,  and  that  is,  that  Christ  has  appointed 
it  as  a  sign  of  precious  truths,  and  a  seal  of  rich  blessings,  to 
his  covenant  people,  and  their  infant  offspring ;  and  I  have 
no  doubt  that,  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  the  baptized  children, 
presented  by  professing  parents  who  had  no  true  faith,  but 
who,  by  this  act,  brought  their  children  within  the  care,  the 
watch,  and  the  privileges  of  the  church,  have  been  instrumen- 
tal in  conferring  upon  their  offspring  rich  benefits,  while 
they  themselves  went  down  to  everlasting  burnings.  If  I 
mistake  not  I  have  seen  many  cases,  in  which  as  far  as  the 
eye  of  man  could  go,  the  truth  of  this  remark  has  been  sig- 
nally exemplified. 

Let  it  not  be  said,  that  such  a  solemn  dedication  of  a  child 
to  God,  is  usurping  the  rights  of  the  child  to  judge  and  act 
for  himself,  when  he  comes  to  years  of  discretion  ;  and  that 
it  is  inconsistent  with  the  privilege  of  every  rational  being  to 
free  inquiry,  and  free  agency.  This  objection  is  founded  on 
an  infidel  spirit.  It  is  equally  opposed  to  the  religious  edu- 
cation of  children ;    and,   if    followed  out,    would  militate 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  43 

against  all  those  restraints,  and  that  instruction  which  the 
word  of  God  enjoins  on  parents.  Nay,  if  the  principle  of 
this  objection  be  correct,  it  is  wrong  to  pre-occupy  the  minds 
of  our  children  with  an  abhorrence  of  lying,  theft,  drunken- 
ness, malice,  and  murder  ;  lest,  forsooth,  we  should  fill  them 
with  such  prejudices  as  would  be  unfriendly  to  free  inquiry. 

The  truth  is,  one  great  purpose  for  which  the  church  was 
instituted,  is  to  watch  over  and  train  up  children  in  the  know- 
ledge and  fear  of  God,  and  thus,  to  "  prej)are  a  seed  to  serve 
him,  who  should  be  accounted  to  the  Lord  for  a  generation." 
And  I  will  venture  to  say,  that  that  system  of  religion  which 
does  not  embrace  children  in  its  ecclesiastical  provisions,  and 
in  its  covenant  engagements,  is  most  materially  defective. 

Infants  may  not  receive  any  apparent  benefit  from  baptism, 
at  the  moment  in  which  the  ordinance  is  administered; 
although  a  gracious  God  may,  even  then,  accompany  the  out- 
ward emblem  with  the  blessing  which  it  represents,  even  "  the 
washing  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Spirit."  This,  indeed,  may  not  be,  and  most  commonly,  so 
far  as  we  can  judge,  is  not  the  case.  But  still  the  benefits  of 
this  ordinance,  when  faithfully  applied  by  ministers,  and  faith- 
fully received  by  parents,  are  abundant — nay,  great  and  im- 
portant every  way.  When  •  children  are  baptized,  they  are 
thereby  recognised  as  belonging  to  the  visible  church  of  God. 
They  are,  as  it  were,  solemnly  entered  as  scholars  or  disci- 
ples in  the  school  of  Christ.  They  are  brought  into  a 
situation,  in  which  they  not  only  may  be  trained  up  for  God, 
but  in  which  their  parents  are  bound  so  to  train  them  up  ; 
and  the  church  is  bound  to  see  that  they  be  so  trained,  as  that 
the  Lord's  claim  to  them  shall  ever  be  recognised  and  main- 
tained. In  a  word,  by  baptism,  when  the  administrators  and 
recipients  are  both  faithful  to  their  respective  trusts,  children 
are  brought  into  a  situation  in  which  all  the  means  of  grace  ; 
all  the  privileges  pertaining  to  Christ's  covenanted  family  ;  in 
a  word,  all  that  is  comprehended  under  the  broad  and  pre- 
cious import  of  the  term  Christian  education,  is  secured  to 
them  in  the  most  ample  manner.  Let  parents  think  of  this, 
when  they  come  to  present  their  children  in  this  holy  ordi- 
nance. And  let  children  lay  all  this  to  heart,  when  they 
come  to  years  in  which  they  are  capable  of  remembering  and 
realizing  their  solemn  responsibility. 

7.  A  seventh  objection  which  our  Baptist  brethren  fre- 
quently urge  is,  that,  upon  our  plan,  the  result  of  baptism 
seldom  corresponds  with  its  professed  meaning.  We  say  it 
is  a  symbol  of  regeneration  ;  but  experience  proves  that  a 


44  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

great  majority  of  those  infants  who  are  baptized,  never  par' 
take  of  the  grace  of  regeneration.  The  practice  of  Poedo- 
baptists,  they  tell  us,  is  adapted  to  corrupt  the  church  to  the 
most  extreme  degree,  by  filling  it  with  unconverted  persons. 
To  this  objection  we  reply  : 

That  baptism  is  not  more  generally  connected  or  followed 
with  that  spiritual  benefit  of  which  it  is  a  striking  emblem, 
is  indeed  to  be  lamented.  But  still  this  acknowledged  fact 
does  not,  it  is  believed,  either  destroy  the  significance  of  the 
ordinance,  or  prove  it  to  be  useless.  If  it  hold  up  to  view, 
to  all  who  behold  it,  every  time  that  it  is  administered,  the 
nature  and  necessity  of  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit ;  if 
it  enjoin,  and,  to  a  very  desirable  extent,  secure,  to  the  chil- 
dren of  the  church  enlightened  and  faithful  instruction,  in  the 
great  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  and  this  doctrine  of  spiritual 
cleansing  in  particular  ;  and  if  it  is,  in  a  multitude  of  cases, 
actually  connected  with  precious  privileges,  and  saving  bene- 
fits ;  we  have,  surely,  no  right  to  conclude  that  it  is  of  small 
advantage,  because  it  is  not  in  all  cases  followed  by  the  bles- 
sing which  it  symbolically  represents.  How  many  read  the 
Bible  without  profit !  How  many  attend  upon  the  external 
service  of  prayer,  without  sincerity,  and  without  a  saving 
blessing  !  But  are  the  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  and  the  duty 
of  prayer  less  obligatory,  or  of  more  dubious  value  on  that 
account?  In  truth,  the  same  objection  might  be  made  to 
circumcision.  That,  as  well  as  baptism,  was  a  symbol  of  re- 
generation, and  of  spiritual  cleansing :  but  how  many  recei- 
ved the  outward  symbol  without  the  spiritual  benefit  ?  The 
fact  is,  the  same  objection  ma3/  be  brought  against  every  in- 
stitution of  God.  They  are  all  richly  significant,  and  abound 
in  spiritiial  meaning,  and  in  spiritual  instruction ;  but  their 
influence  is  moral,  and  may  be  defeated  by  unbelief.  They 
cannot  exert  a  physical  power,  or  convert  and  save  by  their 
inherent  energy.  Hence  they  are  often  attended  by  many 
individuals  without  benefit ;  but  still  their  administration  is 
by  no  means,  in  respect  to  the  church  of  God,  in  vain  in  the 
Lord.  It  is  daily  exerting  an  influence  of  which  no  human 
arithmetic  can  form  an  accurate  estimate.  Thousands,  no 
doubt,  even  of  baptized  adults  receive  the  ordinance  without 
faith,  and  of  course,  without  saving  profit.  But  thousands 
more  receive  it  in  faith,  and  in  connexion  with  those  precious 
benefits  of  which  it  is  a  symbol.  This  is  the  case  with  all 
ordinances  ;  but  because  they  are  not  always  connected  with 
saving  benefits,  we  are  neither  to  disparage,  nor  cease  to  re- 
commend them 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  45 

But  if  baptism  be  a  symbol  of  regeneration ;  if  it  hold 
forth  to  all  who  receive  it,  either  for  themselves  or  their  off- 
spring, the  importance  and  necessity  of  this  great  work  of 
God's  grace  ;  if  it  bind  them  to  teach  their  children,  as  soon 
as  they  become  capable  of  receiving  instruction,  this  vital 
truth,  as  well  as  all  the  other  fundamental  truths  of  our  holy 
religion  ;  if,  in  consequence  of  their  baptism,  children  are  re- 
cognised as  bearing  a  most  important  relation  to  the  church  of 
God,  as  bound  by  her  rules,  and  responsible  to  her  tribunal : 
and  if  all  these  principles  be  faithfully  carried  out  into  prac- 
tice :  can  our  children  be  placed  in  circumstances  more  favour- 
able to  their  moral  benefit  ?  If  not  regenerated  at  the  time  of 
baptism,  (which  the  nature  of  the  ordinance  does  not  neces- 
sarily imply)  are  they  not,  in  virtue  of  their  connexion  with 
the  church,  thus  ratified  and  sealed,  placed  in  the  best  of  all 
schools  for  learning,  practically,  as  well  as  doctrinally,  the 
things  of  God  ?  Are  they  not,  by  these  means,  even  when 
they  fail  of  becoming  pious,  restrained  and  regulated,  and 
made  better  members  of  society  ?  And  are  not  multitudes  of 
them,  after  all,  brought  back  from  their  temporary  wanderings, 
and  by  the  reviving  influence  of  their  baptismal  seal,  and 
their  early  training,  made  wise  unto  salvation  ?  Let  none 
say,  then,  that  infant  baptism  seldom  realizes  its  symbolical 
meaning.  It  is,  I  apprehend,  made  to  do  this  far  more  fre- 
quently than  is  commonly  imagined.  And  if  those  who 
offer  them  up  to  God  in  this  ordinance,  were  more  faithful, 
this  favourable  result  would  occur  with  a  frequency  more  than 
tenfold. 

8.  A  further  objection  often  urged  by  the  opponents  of  in- 
fant baptism  is,  that  we  have  the  same  historical  evidence  for 
infant  communion  that  vje  have  for  infant  baptism ;  and 
that  the  evidence  of  the  former  in  the  early  history  of  the 
church,  altogether  invalidates  the  historical  testimony  which 
we  find  in  favour  of  the  latter. 

In  reply  to  this  objection,  it  is  freely  granted,  that  the 
practice  of  administering  the  eucharist  to  children,  and  some- 
times even  to  very  young  children,  infants,  has  been  in  use  in 
various  parts  of  the  Christian  church,  from  an  early  period, 
and  is,  in  some  parts  of  the  nominally  Christian  world,  still 
maintained.  About  the  middle  of  the  third  century,  we  hear 
of  it  in  some  of  the  African  churches.  A  misconception  of 
the  Saviour's  words — "  Except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you  ;"  led  many 
to  believe  that  a  participation  of  the  Lord's  supper  was  es- 
sential to  salvation.  They  were,  therefore,  led  to  give  a  small 
20*  5* 


46  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

portion  of  the  sacramental  bread  dipped  in  wine  to  children, 
and  dying  persons,  who  were  not  able  to  receive  it  in  the 
usual  form  ;  and,  in  some  cases,  we  find  that  this  morsel  of 
bread  moistened  with  the  consecrated  ^Tine  was  even  forced 
down  the  throats  of  infants,  who  were  reluctant  or  unable  to 
swallow  it.  Nay,  to  so  revolting  a  length  was  this  supersti- 
tion carried  in  a  few  churches,  that  the  consecrated  bread  and 
wine  united  in  the  same  manner  as  in  the  case  of  infants, 
were  thrust  into  the  mouths  of  the  dead,  who  had  departed 
without  receiving  them  during  life  ! 

But  it  is  doing  great  injustice  to  the  cause  of  infant  baptism 
to  represent  it  as  resting  on  no  better  ground  than  the  practice 
of  infant  communion.  The  following  points  of  difference 
are  manifest,  and  appear  to  me  perfectly  conclusive. 

(1.)  Infant  communion  derives  not  the  smallest  countenance 
from  the  word  of  God  ;  whereas,  with  regard  to  infant  bap- 
tism, we  find  in  Scripture  its  most  solid  and  decisive  support. 
It  would  rest  on  a  firm  foundation  if  every  testimony  out  of 
the  Bible  were  destroyed. 

(2.)  The  historical  testimony  in  favour  of  infant  commu- 
nion, is  greatly  inferior  to  that  which  we  possess  in  favour  of 
infant  baptism.  We  have  no  hint  of  the  former  having  been 
in  use  in  any  church  until  the  time  of  Cyprian,  about  the 
middle  of  the  third  century ;  whereas  testimony  more  or  less 
clear  in  favour  of  the  latter  has  come  down  to  us  from  the 
apostolic  age. 

(3.)  Once  more :  Infant  communion  by  no  means  stands  on 
a  level  with  infant  baptism  as  to  its  universal  or  even  general 
reception.  We  find  two  eminent  men  in  the  fourth  century, 
among  the  most  learned  then  on  earth,  and  who  had  enjoyed 
the  best  opportunity  of  becoming  acquainted  with  the  whole 
church,  declaring  that  the  baptism  of  infants  was  a  practice 
which  had  come  down  from  the  apostles,  and  was  universally 
practised  in  the  church ;  nay,  that  they  had  never  heard  of 
any  professing  Christians  in  the  world,  either  orthodox  or 
heretical,  who  did  not  baptize  their  children.  But  we  have 
no  testimony  approaching  this,  in  proof  of  the  early  and  uni- 
versal adoption  of  infant  communion..  It  was  manifestly  an 
innovation,  founded  on  principles  which,  though,  to  a  melan- 
choly degree  prevalent,  were  never  universally  received. 
And  as  miserable  superstition  brought  it  into  the  church,  so  a 
still  more  miserable  superstition  destroyed  it.  When  transub- 
stantiation  arose,  the  sacred  elements,  (now  transmuted,  as 
was  supposed,  into  the  real  body  and  blood  of  the  Saviour) 
began  to  be  considered  as  too  awful  in  their  character  to  be 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  47 

imparted  to  children.  But  in  the  Greek  church,  who  sepa- 
rated from  the  Latin  before  the  transubstantiation  was  estab- 
lished, the  practice  of  infant  communion  still  superstitiously 
continues. 

9.  Again :  It  is  objected  that  Poedobaptists  are  not  consis- 
tent with  themselves,  in  that  they  do  not  treat  their  children 
as  if  they  were  members  of  the  church.  "  Poedobaptists," 
say  our  Baptist  brethren,  "  maintain  that  the  children  of  pro- 
fessing Christians  are,  in  virtue  of  their  birth,  members  of 
the  church — plenary  members — externally  in  covenant  with 
God,  and  as  such  made  the  subjects  of  a  sacramental  seal. 
Yet  we  seldom  or  never  see  a  Poedobaptist  church  treating 
her  baptized  children  as  church  inembers,  that  is,  instruct- 
ing, watching  over,  and  disciplining  them,  as  in  the  case  of 
adult  members.  Does  not  this  manifest  that  their  system  is 
inconsistent  with  itself,  impracticable,  and  therefore  unsound?" 
This  objection  is  a  most  serious  and  weighty  one,  and  ought 
to  engage  the  conscientious  attention  of  every  Pcedobaptist 
who  wishes  to  maintain  his  profession  with  consistency  and 
to  edification. 

It  cannot  be  denied,  then,  that  the  great  mass  of  the  Pcedo- 
baptist  churches,  do  act  inconsistently  in  regard  to  this  matter. 
They  do  not  carry  out,  and  apply  their  own  system  by  a 
corresponding  practice.  That  baptized  children  should  be 
treated  by  the  church  and  her  officers  just  as  other  children 
are  treated :  that  they  should  receive  the  seal  of  a  covenant 
relation  to  God  and  his  people,  and  then  be  left  to  negligence 
and  sin,  without  official  inspection,  and  without  discipline, 
precisely  as  those  are  left  who  bear  no  relation  to  the  church, 
is,  it  must  be  confessed,  altogether  inconsistent  with  the  na- 
ture and  design  of  the  ordinance,  and  in  a  high  degree  un- 
friendly to  the  best  interests  of  the  Church  of  God.  This 
distressing  fact,  however,  as  has  been  often  observed,  mili- 
tates, not  against  the  doctrine  itself,  of  infant  membership,  but 
against  the  inconsistency  of  those  who  profess  to  adopt  and 
to  act  upon  it. 

If  one  great  end  of  instituting  a  church,  as  was  before  ob- 
served, is  the  training  up  of  a  godly  seed  in  the  way  of 
truth,  hohness,  and  salvation ;  and  if  one  gi-eat  purpose  of 
sacramental  seals  is  to  "  separate  between  the  precious  and 
the  vile,"  and  to  set  a  distinguishing  mark  upon  the  Lord's 
people ;  then,  undoubtedly,  those  who  bear  this  mark,  whether 
infant  or  adult,  ought  to  be  treated  with  appropriate  inspec- 
tion and  care,  and  their  relation  to  the  Church  of  God  never, 
for  a  moment,  lost  sight  of  or  neglected.    In  regard  to  adults, 


48  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

this  duty  is  generally  recognised  by  all  evangelical  churches. 
Why  it  has  fallen  into  so  much  neglect,  in  regard  to  our  in- 
fant and  juvenile  members,  may  be  more  easily  explained 
than  justified.  And  yet  it  is  manifest,  that  attention  to  the 
duty  in  question  in  reference  to  the  youthful  members  of  the 
church,  is  not  only  important,  but,  in  some  respects,  pre- 
eminently so  ;  and  peculiarly  adapted  to  promote  the  edifica- 
tion and  enlargement  of  the  Christian  family. 

If  it  be  asked,  what  more  can  be  done  for  the  moral  culture 
and  welfare  of  baptized  children,  than  is  done  ?  I  answer, 
much,  that  would  be  of  inestimable  value  to  them,  and  to  the 
Christian  community.  The  task,  indeed,  of  training  them 
up  for  God,  is  an  arduous  one,  but  it  is  practicable,  and 
the  faithful  discharge  of  it  involves  the  richest  reward.  The 
following  plan  may  be  said  naturally  to  grow  out  of  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  membership ;  and  no  one  can  doubt  that,  if 
carried  into  faithful  execution,  it  would  form  a  new  and  glo- 
rious era  in  the  history  of  the  Church  of  God. 

Let  all  baptized  children,  from  the  hour  of  their  receiving 
the  seal  of  God's  covenant,  be  recorded  and  recognised  as  in- 
fant disciples.  Let  the  officers  of  the  church,  as  well  as 
their  parents  according  to  the  flesh,  ever  regard  them  with  a 
watchful  and  affectionate  eye.  Let  Christian  instruction, 
Christian  restraint,  and  Christian  warning,  entreaty  and  prayer 
ever  attend  them,  from  the  mother's  lap  to  the  infant  school, 
and  from  the  infant  school  to  the  seminary,  whatever  it  may 
be,  for  more  mature  instruction.  Let  them  be  early  taught  to 
reverence  and  read  the  word  of  God,  and  to  treasure  up 
select  portions  of  it  in  their  memories.  Let  appropriate  cate- 
chisms, and  other  sound  compends  of  Christian  truth,  be  put 
into  their  hands,  and  by  incessant  repetition  and  inculcation 
be  impressed  upon  their  minds.  Let  a  school  or  schools,  ac- 
cording to  its  extent,  be  established  in  each  church,  placed 
under  the  immediate  instruction  of  exemplary,  orthodox,  and 
pious  teachers,  carefully  superintended  by  the  pastor,  and 
,  visited  as  often  as  practicable  by  all  the  officers  of  the  church. 
Let  these  beloved  youth  be  often  reminded  of  the  relation 
which  they  bear  to  the  Christian  family ;  and  the  just  claim 
of  Christ  to  their  affections  and  service,  be  often  presented 
with  distinctness,  solemnity,  and  affection.  Let  every  kind 
of  error  and  immorality  be  faithfully  reproved,  and  as  far  as 
possible  suppressed  in  them.  Let  the  pastor  convene  the 
baptized  children  as  often  as  practicable,  and  address  them 
with  instruction  and  exhortation  in  the  name  of  that  God  to 
whom  they  have  been  dedicated,  and  every  endeavour  made 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  49 

to  impress  their  consciences  and  their  hearts  with  Gospel 
truth.  When  they  come  to  years  of  discretion,  let  them  be 
affectionately  remmded  of  their  duty  to  ratify,  by  their  own 
act,  the  vows  made  by  their  parents  in  baptism,  and  be  urged, 
again  and  again,  to  give,  first  their  hearts,  and  then  the  hum- 
ble acknowledgment  of  an  outward  profession,  to  the  Saviour. 
Let  this  plan  be  pursued  faithfully,  constandy,  patiently,  and 
with  parental  tenderness.  If  instruction  and  exhortation  be 
disregarded,  and  a  course  of  error,  immorality,  or  negligence 
be  indulged  in,  let  warning,  admonition,  suspension,  or  ex- 
communication ensue,  according  to  the  character  of  the  indi- 
vidual, and  the  exigencies  of  the  case.  "  What !"  some  will 
be  disposed  to  say,  "  suspend  or  excommunicate  a  young 
person,  who  has  never  yet  taken  his  seat  at  a  sacramental 
table,  nor  even  asked  for  that  privilege  ?"  Certainly.  Why 
not  ?  If  the  children  of  professing  Christians  are  born  mem- 
bers of  the  church,  and  are  baptized  as  a  sign  and  seal  of 
this  membership,  nothing  can  be  plainer  than  that  they  ought 
to  be  treated  in  every  respect  as  church  members,  and,  of 
course,  if  they  act  in  an  unchristian  manner,  a  bar  ought  to 
be  set  up  in  the  way  of  their  enjoying  Christian  privileges. 
If  this  be  not  admitted,  we  must  give  up  the  very  first  princi- 
ples of  ecclesiastical  order  and  duty.  Nor  is  there,  obviously 
any  thing  m.ore  incongruous  in  suspending  or  excluding  from 
church  privileges  a  young  man,  or  young  woman,  who  has 
been  baptized  in  infancy,  and  trained  up  in  the  bosom  of  the 
church,  but  has  now  no  regard  for  religion,  than  there  is  in 
suspending  or  excommunicating  one  who  has  been,  for  many 
years,  an  attendant  on  the  Lord's  table,  but  has  now  forsaken 
the  house  of  God,  and  has  no  longer  any  desire  to  approach 
a  Christian  ordinance.  No  one  would  consider  it  as  either 
incongruous  or  unreasonable  to  declare  such  a  person  unwor- 
thy of  Christian  fellowship,  and  excluded  from  it,  though  he 
had  no  disposition  to  enjoy  it.  The  very  same  principle 
applies  in  the  case  now  under  consideration. 

It  has  been  supposed,  indeed,  by  some  Poedobaptists,  that 
although  every  baptized  child  is  a  regular  church  member,  he 
is  a  member  only  of  the  general  visible  church,  and  not  in 
the  ordinary  sense,  of  any  particular  church  ;  and,  therefore, 
that  he  is  not  amenable  to  ecclesiastical  discipline  until  he 
formally  connects  himself  with  some  particular  church. 
This  doctrine  appears  to  me  subversive  of  every  principle  of 
ecclesiastical  order.  Every  baptized  child  is,  undoubtedly, 
to  be  considered  as  a  member  of  the  church  in  which  he  re- 
ceived baptism,  until  he  dies,  is  excommunicated,  or  regularly 


50  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

dismissed  to  another  church.  And  if  the  time  shall  ever  come 
when  all  om-  churches  shall  act  upon  this  plan ;  when  infant 
members  shall  be  watched  over  with  unceasing  and  affection- 
ate moral  care  ;  when  a  baptized  young  person,  of  either  sex, 
being  not  yet  what  is  called  a  communicant,  shall  be  made  the 
subject  of  mild  and  faithful  Christian  discipline,  if  he  fall 
into  heresy  or  immorality ;  when  he  shall  be  regularly  dis- 
missed, by  letter,  from  the  watch  and  care  of  one  church  to 
another;  and  when  all  his  spiritual  interests  shall  be  guarded, 
by  the  church,  as  well  as  by  his  parents,  with  sacred  and 
affectionate  diligence  ;  when  this  efficient  and  faithful  system 
shall  be  acted  upon,  infant  baptism  will  be  universally  ac- 
knowledged as  a  blessing,  and  the  church  will  shine  with  new 
and  spiritual  glory. 

The  truth  is,  if  infant  baptism  were  properly  improved  ;  if 
the  profession  which  it  includes,  and  the  obligations  which  it 
imposes,  were  suitably  appreciated, and  followed  up,  it  would 
have  few  opponents.  I  can  no  more  doubt,  if  this  were  done, 
that  it  would  be  blessed  to  the  saving  conversion  of  thousands 
of  our  young  people,  than  I  can  doubt  the  faithfulness  of  a 
covenant  God.  Yes,  infant  baptism  is  of  God,  but  the 
fault  lies  in  the  conduct  of  its  advocates.  The  inconsistency 
of  its  friends  has  done  more  to  discredit  it,  than  all  the  argu- 
ments of  its  opposers,  a  hundred  fold.  Let  us  hope  that 
these  friends  will,  one  day,  arouse  from  their  deplorable 
lethargy,  and  show  that  they  are  contending  for  an  ordinance 
as  precious  as  it  is  scriptural. 

10.  Another  objection,  often  urged  with  confidence,  against 
infant  membership  and  baptism  is,  that,  if  they  be  well  foun- 
ded, then  it  follows,  of  course,  that  every  baptized  young 
person,  or  even  child,  who  feels  disposed  to  do  so,  has  a 
right  to  come  to  the  Lord's  table,  ivithout  inquiry  or  'per- 
mission of  any  one.  Upon  this  principle,  say  our  Baptist 
brethren,  as  a  large  portion  of  those  who  are  baptized  in  in- 
fancy are  manifestly  not  pious,  and  many  of  them  become 
openly  profligate  ;  if  their  caprice  or  their  wickedness  should 
prompt  them  to  go  forward,  the  church  would  be  disgraced 
by  crowds  of  the  most  unworthy  communicants. 

This  objection  is  founded  on  an  entire  mistake.  And  a 
recurrence,  for  one  moment,  to  the  principles  of  civil  society, 
will  at  once  expose  it.  Every  child  is  a  citizen  of  the  coun- 
try in  which  he  was  born :  a  plenary  citizen  :  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  half-way  citizenship  in  this  case.  He  is  a  free 
born  citizen  in  the  fullest  extent  of  the  term.  Yet,  until  he 
reach  a  certain  age,  and  possess  certain  qualifications,  he  is 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  52 

not  eligible  to  the  most  important  offices  which  his  country 
has  to  confer.  And  after  he  has  been  elected,  he  cannot  take 
his  seat  for  the  discharge  of  these  official  functions,  until  he 
has  taken  certain  prescribed  oaths.  It  is  evident  that  the 
State  has  a  right,  and  finds  it  essential  to  her  well  being,  by 
her  constitution  and  her  laws,  thus  to  limit  the  rights  of  the 
citizen.  Still  no  one  supposes  that  he  is  the  less  a  citizen, 
or  thinks  of  representing  him  as  only  a  half-way  citizen  prior 
to  his  compliance  with  these  forms.  In  like  manner  every 
baptized  child  is  a  member — ^a  plenary  member  of  the  church 
in  which  he  received  the  sacramental  seal.  There  his  mem- 
bership is  recognised  and  recorded,  and  there  alone  can  he 
regularly  receive  a  certificate  of  this  fact,  and  a  dismission 
to  put  himself  under  the  watch  and  care  of  any  other  church. 
Still  the  church  to  which  this  ecclesiastical  minor  belongs,  in 
the  exercise  of  that  "  authority  which  Christ  has  given,  for 
edification  and  not  for  destruction,"  will  not  suffer  him,  if 
she  does  her  duty,  to  come  to  the  Lord's  table,  until  he  has 
reached  an  age  when  he  has  "knowledge  to  discern  the 
Lord's  body,"  and  until  he  shall  manifest  that  exemplary 
deportment  and  hopeful  piety  which  become  one  who  claims 
the  privileges  of  Christian  communion.  If  he  manifest  an 
opposite  character,  it  is  her  duty,  as  a  part  of  her  stated  dis- 
cipline, to  prevent  his  enjoying  these  privileges  just  as  it  is 
her  duty,  in  the  case  of  one  who  has  been  a  communicant 
for  years,  when  he  departs  from  the  order  and  purity  of  a 
Christian  profession,  to  debar  him  from  the  continued  enjoy- 
ment of  his  former  good  standing.  In  short,  the  language  of 
the  apostle  Paul,  though  originally  intended  for  a  different 
purpose,  is  strictly  applicable  to  the  subject  before  us  :  "  The 
heir,  as  long  as  he  is  a  child,  difTereth  nothing  from  the  ser- 
vant, though  he  be  lord  of  all ;  but  is  under  tutors  and  gover- 
nors, until  the  time  appointed  of  the  Father."  In  a  word, 
in  the  Church,  as  well  as  in  the  State,  there  is  an  order  in 
which  privileges  are  to  be  enjoyed.  As  it  is  not  every  citi- 
zen who  is  eligible  to  office ;  and  as  not  even  the  qualified 
have  a  right  to  intrude  into  office  uncalled;  so  youthful 
church  members,  like  all  others,  are  under  the  watch  and 
care  of  the  church,  and  the  time  and  manner  in  which  they 
shall  recognise  their  baptismal  engagements,  and  come  to  the 
enjoyment  of  plenary  privileges,  Christ  has  left  his  church  to 
decide,  on  her  responsibility  to  himself.  No  one,  of  any  age, 
has  a  right  to  come  to  her  communion  without  the  consent  of 
the  church.  When  one,  after  coming  to  that  communion 
has  been  debarred  from  it  for  a  time,  by  regular  ecclesiasticaJ 


52  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

authority,  he  has  no  right  to  come  again  until  the  interdict  is 
taken  off.  Of  course,  by  parity  of  reasoning,  one  who  has 
never  yet  come  at  all,  cannot  come  without  asking  and  ob- 
taining the  permission  of  those  who  are  set  to  govern  in  the 
church. 

This  view  of  the  subject  is  at  once  illustrated  and  confir- 
med by  the  uniform  practise  of  the  Old  Testament  church. 
The  children  of  Jewish  parents,  though  regular  church  mem- 
bers in  virtue  of  their  birth,  and  recognised  as  such  in  virtue 
of  their  circumcision,  were  still  not  allowed  to  come  to  the 
Passover  until  they  were  of  a  certain  age,  and  not  even  then, 
unless  they  were  ceremonially  clean.  This  is  so  well  attes- 
ted by  sacred  antiquarians,  both  Jewish  and  Christian,  that 
it  cannot  be  reasonably  called  in  question.  Calvin  remarks, 
that  "  the  Passover,  which  has  now  been  succeeded  by  the 
sacred  Supper,  did  not  admit  guests  of  all  descriptions  pro- 
miscuously ;  but  was  rightly  eaten  only  by  those  who  were 
of  sufficient  age  to  be  able  to  inquire  into  its  signification." 
The  same  distinct  statement  is  also  made  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Gill,  an  eminent  commentator  of  the  Baptist  denomination. 
"According  to  the  maxims  of  the  Jews,"  says  he,  "persons 
were  not  obliged  to  the  duties  of  the  law,  or  subject  to  the 
penaltes  of  it  in  case  of  non-performance,  until  they  were,  a 
female,  at  the  age  of  twelve  years  and  one  day,  and  a  male 
at  the  age  of  thirteen  years  and  one  day.  But  then  they 
used  to  train  up  their  children,  and  inure  them  to  religious 
exercises  before.  They  were  not  properly  under  the  law 
until  they  were  arrived  at  the  age  above  mentioned;  nor 
were  they  reckoned  adult  church  members  until  then ;  nor 
then  neither  unless  worthy  persons ;  for  so  it  is  said,  "  He  that 
is  worthy,  at  thirteen  years  of  age,  is  called  a  son  of  the 
congregation  of  Israel."     (Commentary  on  Luke  ii.  42.) 

The  objection,  then,  before  us  is  of  no  force.  Or  rather, 
the  fact  which  it  alleges  and  deprecates  has  no  existence.  It 
makes  no  part  of  the  Poedobaptist  system.  Nay,  our  system 
has  advantages  in  respect  to  this  matter,  great  and  radical  ad- 
vantages, which  belong  to  no  other.  While  it  regards  bap- 
tized children  as  members  of  the  church,  and  solemnly  binds 
the  church,  as  well  as  the  parents,  to  see  that  they  be  faith- 
fully trained  up  "  in  the  nurture  and  admonition  of  the  Lord," 
it  recognises  the  church  as  possessing,  and  as  bound  to  exer- 
cise the  power  of  guarding  the  communion  table  from  all  the 
profane  approaches,  even  of  her  own  children,  and  so  regu- 
lating their  Christian  culture,  and  their  personal  recognition 
of  Christian  duty,  as  shall  best  serve  the  great  purpose  of 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  53 

building  up  the  church  as  "  an  habitation  of  God  through  the 
Spirit." 

11.  The  last  objection  which  I  propose  to  consider  is  this: 
"  If  baptism,"  say  our  opponents,  "  takes  the  place  of  cir- 
cumcision, and  if  the  church  is  the  same  in  substance  now 
as  when  circumcision  was  the  initiating  seal,  then  why  is  not 
baptism  as  universal  in  the  New  Testament  churchy  as  cir- 
cumcision ivas  under  the  old  economy?  Why  is  not  every 
child,  under  the  light  of  the  Gospel,  baptized,  as  every 
Israelitish  child  was  circumcised."  I  answer,  this  undoubt- 
edly, ought  to  be  the  case.  That  is,  all  parents,  where  the 
Gospel  comes,  ought  to  be  true  believers ;  ought  to  be  mem- 
bers of  the  Church  of  Christ  themselves  ;  and  ought  to  dedi- 
cate their  children  to  God  in  holy  baptism.  The  command 
of  God  calls  for  it ;  and  if  parents  were  what  they  ought  to 
be,  they  would  be  all  prepared  for  a  proper  application  of 
this  sacramental  seal.  Under  the  Mosaic  dispensation,  a  sin- 
gle nation  of  the  great  human  family,  was  called  out  of  an 
idolatrous  world  to  be  the  depository  of  the  word  and  the 
ordinances  of  the  true  God.  Then  all  who  belonged  to  that 
nation  were  bound  to  be  holy ;  and  unless  they  were  at  least 
ceremonially  clean,  the  divine  direction  was,  that  they  should 
be  "  cut  off  from  their  people."  The  obligation  was  univer- 
sal, and  the  penalty,  in  case  of  delinquency,  was  universal. 
Multitudes  of  parents,  no  doubt,  under  that  economy,  pre- 
sented their  children  to  God  in  the  sacrament  of  circumcision, 
who  had  no  true  faith ;  but  they  professed  to  believe  ;  they 
attended  to  all  the  requisitions  of  ceremonial  cleanness,  and 
that  rendered  the  circumcision  authorized  and  regular.  So 
in  the  New  Testament  church.  This  is  a  body,  like  the 
other,  called  out  from  the  rest  of  mankind,  but  not  confined 
to  a  particular  nation.  It  consists  of  all  those,  of  every  na- 
tion, who  profess  the  true  religion.  Within  this  spiritual 
community  baptism  ought  to  be  as  universal  as  circumcision 
was  in  the  old  "  commonwealth  of  Israel."  Those  parents 
who  profess  faith  in  Christ,  and  obedience  to  him,  and  those 
only,  ought  to  present  their  children  in  baptism.  There  is, 
indeed,  reason  to  fear  that  many  visible  adult  members  are 
not  sincere.  Still,  as  they  are  externally  regular,  their  chil- 
dren are  entitled  to  baptism.  And  were  the  whole  infant 
population  of  our  land  in  these  circumstances,  they  might, 
and  ought  to  be  baptized. 

I  have  thus  endeavoured  to  dispose  of  the  various  objec- 
tions which  our  Baptist  brethren  are  wont  to  urge  against  the 
cause  of  infant  baptism.  I  have  conscientiously  aimed  to 
21  6 


54  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

present  them  in  all  their  force  ;  and  am  constrained  to  believe 
that  neither  Scripture,  reason,  nor  ecclesiastical  history  afford 
them  the  least  countenance.  The  longer  I  reflect  on  the 
subject,  the  deeper  is  my  conviction,  that  the  membership 
and  the  baptism  of  infants  rest  on  grounds  which  no  fair  ar- 
gument can  shake  or  weaken. 

From  the  principles  implied  or  established  in  the  forego- 
ing pages,  we  may  deduce  the  following  practical  conclu- 
sions : 

1.  We  are  warranted  in  returning  with  renewed  confi- 
dence to  the  conclusion  stated  in  advance,  in  the  early  part 
of  our  first  discourse,  viz  :  that  the  error  of  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren in  rejecting  the  church  membership  and  the  baptism  of 
infants,  is  a  most  serious  and  mischievous  error.  It  is  not 
a  mere  mistake  about  a  speculative  point;  but  is  an  error 
which  so  directly  contravenes  the  spirit  of  the  whole  Bible, 
and  of  all  Jehovah's  covenants  with  his  people,  in  every  age, 
that  it  must  be  considered  as  invading  some  of  the  most  vital 
interests  of  the  body  of  Christ,  and  as  adapted  to  exert  a  most 
baneful  influence  on  his  spiritual  kingdom.  On  this  subject, 
my  friends,  my  expressions  are  strong,  because  my  convic- 
tions are  strong,  and  my  desire  to  guard  every  hearer  against 
mischievous  error  increasingly  strong.  I  am,  indeed,  by  no 
means  disposed  to  deny  either  the  piety  or  the  honest  con- 
victions of  our  respected  Baptist  brethren  in  adopting  an  op- 
posite opinion  from  ours.  But  I  am,  nevertheless,  deeply 
convinced  that  their  system  is  not  only  entirely  unscriptural, 
but  also  that  its  native  tendency  is  to  place  children,  who  are 
the  hope  of  the  church,  in  a  situation  less  friendly  to  the 
welfare  of  Zion,  and  less  favourable,  by  far,  to  their  own 
salvation,  than  that  in  which  they  are  placed  by  our  system ; 
and  that  its  ultimate  influence  on  the  rising  generation,  on 
family  religion,  and  on  the  growth  of  the  church,  must  be 
deeply  injurious. 

2.  Again ;  it  is  evident,  from  what  has  been  said,  that  the 
baptism,  of  our  children  means  much^  and  involves  much 
solemn  tender  obligation.  We  do  not,  indeed,  ascribe  to 
this  sacrament  that  kind  of  inherent  virtue  of  which  some 
who  bear  the  Christian  name  have  spoken  and  inferred  so 
much.  We  do  not  believe  that  baptism  is  regeneration. 
(See  Additional  Notes.)  We  consider  this  as  a  doctrine 
having  no  foundation  in  the  word  of  God,  and  as  eminently 
fitted  to  deceive  and  destroy  the  soul.  We  do  not  suppose 
that  the  ordinance,  whenever  legitimately  administered,  is 
necessarily  accompanied  with  any  physical  or  moral  influr 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  55 

ence,  operating  either  on  the  soul  or  the  body  of  him  who 
receives  it.  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  we  do  not  consider  it 
as  a  mere  unmeaning  ceremony.  We  cannot  regard  it  as  the 
mere  giving  a  name  to  the  child  to  whom  it  is  dispensed. 
Multitudes  appear  to  regard  it  as  amounting  to  little,  if  any 
more  than  one  or  both  of  these.  And,  therefore,  they  con- 
sider the  season  of  its  celebration  as  a  kind  of  ecclesiastical 
festival  or  pageant.  They  would  not,  on  any  account,  have 
the  baptism  of  their  children  neglected  ;  and  yet  they  solicit 
and  receive  it  for  their  offspring,  with  scarcely  one  serious 
or  appropriate  thought ;  without  any  enlightened  or  adequate 
impression  of  what  it  means,  or  what  obligation  it  imposes 
on  them  or  their  children.  A  baptism,  like  a  marriage,  is  re- 
garded by  multitudes  as  an  appropriate  season  for  congratula- 
tion and  feasting,  and  very  little  more,  in  connection  with  it, 
seems  to  occur  to  their  minds.  This  is  deeply  to  be  deplo- 
red. The  minds  of  the  mass  of  mankind  seem  to  be  ever 
prope  to  vibrate  from  superstition  to  impiety,  and  from  im- 
piety back  to  superstition.  Those  simple,  spiritual  views 
of  truth,  and  of  Christian  ordinances  which  the  Bible  every 
where  holds  forth,  and  which  alone  tend  to  real  benefit,  too 
seldom  enlighten  and  govern  the  mass  of  those  who  bear  the 
Christian  name.  Now,  the  truth  is,  little  as  it  is  recollected 
and  laid  to  heart,  few  things  can  be  more  expressive,  more 
solemn,  or  more  interesting,  more  touching  in  its  appeals, 
more  deeply  comprehensive  in  its  import,  or  more  weighty 
in  the  obligations  which  it  involves,  than  the  baptism  of  an 
infant.  I  repeat  it — and  oh,  that  the  sentence  could  be  made 
to  thrill  through  every  parent's  heart  in  (Christendom — the 
baptism  of  a  child  is  one  of  the  solemn  transactions  pertain- 
ing to  our  holy  religion.  A  human  being,  just  opening  its 
eyes  on  the  world ;  presented  to  that  God  who  made  it,  de- 
voted to  that  Saviour  without  an  interest  in  whose  atoning 
blood,  it  had  better  never  have  been  bom ;  and  consecrated 
to  that  Holy  Spirit,  who  alone  can  sanctify  and  prepare  it 
for  heaven;  is  indeed  a  spectacle  adapted  to  affect  every 
pious  heart.  In  death,  our  race  is  run ;  worldly  hope  and 
expectation  are  alike  extinct ;  and  the  destiny  of  the  immor- 
tal spirit  is  forever  fixed.  But  the  child  presented  for  bap- 
tism, if  it  reach  the  ordinary  limit  of  human  life,  has  before 
it  many  a  trial,  and  will  need  all  the  pardoning  mercy, 
all  the  sanctifying  grace,  and  all  the  precious  consolations 
which  the  blessed  Gospel  of  Christ  has  to  bestow.  And 
even  if  it  die  in  infancy,  it  still  needs  the  pardoning  mercy 
and  sanctifying  grace  whicli  are  set  forth  in  this  ordinaince. 


56  INFANT  BAPTISM-. 

On  either  supposition,  the  transaction  is  important.  A 
course  is  commenced  which  will  be  a  blessing  or  a  curse  be- 
yond the  power  of  the  human  mind  to  estimate.  And  the 
eternal  happiness  or  the  misery  of  the  young  immortal  will 
depend,  under  God,  upon  the  training  it  shall  receive  from 
the  hands  of  those  who  offer  it. 

Let  those,  then,  who  bring  their  children  to  the  sacred  font 
to  be  baptized,  ponder  well  what  this  ordinance  means,  and 
what  its  reception  involves,  both  in  regard  to  parents  and 
children.  Let  them  remember  that  in  taking  this  step,  we 
make  a  solemn  profession  of  belief,  that  our  children,  as  well 
as  ourselves,  are  born  in  sin,  and  stand  in  indispensable  need 
of  pardoning  mercy  and  sanctifying  grace.  We  formally  de- 
dicate them  to  God,  that  they  may  be  "  washed  and  justified, 
and  sanctified  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  by  the 
Spirit  of  our  God.  And  we  take  upon  ourselves  solemn 
vows  to  train  them  up  in  the  knowledge  and  fear  of  God ;  to 
instruct  them,  from  the  earliest  dawn  of  reason,  in  the  prin- 
ciples and  duties  of  our  holy  religion ;  to  consider  and  treat 
them  as  ingrafted  members  of  the  family  of  Christ,  and  to 
do  all  in  our  power,  by  precept  and  example,  by  authority 
and  by  prayer,  to  lead  them  in  the  ways  of  truth,  of  holiness, 
and  of  salvation.  Is  this  an  ordinance  to  be  engaged  in  as  a 
mere  ceremony,  or  with  convivial  levity  ?  Surely  if  there  be 
a  transaction,  among  all  the  duties  incumbent  on  us  as  Chris- 
tians— if  there  be  a  transaction  which  ought  to  be  engaged  in 
with  reverence,  and  godly  fear :  with  penitence,  faith,  and 
love ;  with  bowels  of  Christian  compassion  yearning  over 
our  beloved  offspring  ;  with  humble  and  importunate  aspi- 
rations to  the  God  of  all  grace  for  his  blessing  on  them  and 
ourselves  ;  and  with  solemn  resolutions,  in  the  strength  of  his 
grace,  that  we  will  be  faithful  to  our  vows, — this  is  that 
transaction  I  O  how  full  of  meaning  !  And  yet  how  little 
thought  of  by  the  most  of  those  who  engage  in  it  with  exter- 
nal decorum ! 

3.  The  foregoing  discussion  will  show  by  whom  children 
ought  to  be  presented  in  holy  baptism.  The  answer  given 
by  the  old  Waldenses  to  this  question  is,  undoubtedly,  the 
wisest  and  best.  They  say,  as  before  quoted,  "  Children 
ought  to  be  presented  in  baptism  by  those  to  whom  they  are 
most  nearly  related  such  as  their  parents,  or  those  whom 
God  hath  inspired  with  such  a  charity."  If  parents  be 
living  and  be  of  a  suitable  character  ;  that  is,  if  they  have 
been  baptized  themselves,  and  sustain  a  regular  standing  as 
professing  Christians,  they,  and  they  alone,  ought  to  present 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  57 

their  children  in  this  ordinance.  And  all  introduction  of 
godfathers  and  godmothers,  as  sponsors,  either  instead  of  the 
parents,  or  besides  the  parents,  is  regarded  by  the  great  ma- 
jority of  Poedobaptist  churches  as  superstitious,  unwarranted, 
and  of  course,  mischievous  in  its  tendency.  Whatever  tends 
to  beget  erroneous  ideas  of  the  nature  and  design  of  a  Gos- 
pel ordinance ;  to  shift  off  the  responsibility  attending  it  from 
the  proper  to  improper  hands ;  and  to  the  assumption  of  so- 
lemn engagements  by  those  who  can  never  really  fulfil  them, 
and  have  no  intention  of  doing  it,  cannot  fail  of  exerting  an 
influence  unfriendly  to  the  best  interests  of  the  Church  of 
God. 

But  if  the  parents  be  dead ;  or,  though  living,  of  irreligious 
character;  and  if  the  grand  parents,  or  any  other  near  rela- 
tions, of  suitable  qualifications,  be  wilhng  to  undertake  the 
office  of  training  up  children  "  in  the  nurture  and  admonition 
of  the  Lord,"  it  is  proper  for  them  to  present  such  children 
in  baptism.  Or  if  deserted,  or  orphan  children  be  cast  in  the 
families  of  strangers,  who  are  no  way  related  to  them  accor- 
ding to  the  flesh,  but  who  are  willing  to  stand  in  the  place 
of  parents,  and  train  them  up  for  God ;  even  these  strangers, 
in  short,  any  and  every  person  of  suitable  character,  who 
may  be  willing  to  assume  the  charitable  office  of  gi\dng  them 
a  Christian  education,  may  and  ought  to  present  such  chil- 
dren for  Christian  baptism.  Not  only  the  offspring  of  Abra- 
ham's body,  but  "  all  that  were  born  in  his  house,  and  all 
that  were  bought  with  his  money,"  were  commanded  to  be 
circumcised.  Surely  no  Christian  w^ho  has  a  child,  white 
or  black,  placed  in  his  family,  and  likely  to  be  a  permanent 
member  of  it,  can  doubt  that  it  is  his  duty  to  give  it  a  faithful 
Christian  education.  And  as  one  great  object  of  infant  bap- 
tism is  to  secure  this  point,  he  will  not  hesitate  to  ofl'er  it  up 
to  God  in  that  ordinance  which  he  has  appointed,  provided 
no  valid  objection  in  regard  to  the  wishes  of  the  parents  of 
such  a  child  interpose  to  prevent  it. 

4.  This  subject  shows  how  responsible,  and  how  solemn 
is  the  situation  of  those  young  persons  ivho  have  been  in 
their  infancy  dedicated  to  God  in  holy  baptism .'  This  is  a 
point  concerning  which  both  old  and  young  are  too  often  for- 
getful. It  is  generally  coru^eded,  and  extensively  felt,  that 
parents,  by  dedicating  their  children  to  God  in  this  ordi- 
nance, are  brought  under  very  weighty  obligations,  which 
cannot  be  forgotten  by  them,  without  incuiTing  great  guilt. 
But  young  people  seldom  lay  to  heart  as  they  ought,  that 
their  early  reception  of  the  seal  of  God's  covenant,  in  conse- 
21*  6* 


58  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

quence  of  the  act  of  their  parents,  places  them  in  circum- 
stances of  the  most  solemn  and  responsible  kind.  They  are 
too  apt  to  imagine  that  they  are  not  members  of  the  church, 
until  by  some  act  of  profession  of  their  own,  they  are  brought 
into  this  relation,  and  assume  its  bonds  ;  that  their  making 
this  profession,  or  not  making  it,  is  a  matter  of  mere  choice, 
left  to  their  own  decision ;  that  by  omitting  it,  they  violate 
no  tie — contract  no  guilt ;  that  by  refraining,  they  leave  them- 
selves more  at  liberty ;  and  that  the  only  danger  consists  in 
making  an  insincere  profession.  This  is  a  view  of  the  sub- 
ject, which,  however  common,  is  totally,  and  most  crimi- 
nally erroneous.  The  children  of  professing  Christians  are 
already  in  the  church.  They  were  born  members.  Their 
baptism  did  not  make  them  members.  It  was  a  public  ratifi- 
cation and  recognition  of  their  membership.  They  were 
baptized  because  they  were  members.  They  received  the 
seal  of  the  covenant  because  they  were  already  in  covenant 
by  virtue  of  their  birth.  This  blessed  privilege  is  their 
"  birth-right."  Of  course,  the  only  question  they  can  ask 
themselves  is,  not — shall  we  enter  the  church,  and  profess  to 
be  connected  with  Christ's  family  ?  But — shall  we  continue 
in  it,  or  act  the  part  of  ungrateful  deserters  ?  "  Shall  we  be 
thankful  for  this  privilege,  and  gratefully  recognise  and  con- 
firm it  by  our  own  act ;  or  shall  we  renounce  our  baptism  ; 
disown  and  deny  the  Saviour  in  whose  name  we  have  been 
enrohed  as  members  of  his  family  ;  and  become  open  apos- 
tates from  that  family  ?"  This  is  the  real  question  to  be  de- 
cided ;  and  truly  a  solemn  question  it  is  !  Baptized  young 
people  !  think  of  this.  You  have  been  in  the  bosom  of  the 
church  ever  since  you  drew  your  first  breath.  The  seal  of 
God's  covenant  has  been  placed  upon  you.  You  cannot,  if 
you  would,  escape  from  the  responsibility  of  this  relation. 
You  may  forget  it ;  you  may  hate  to  think  of  it ;  you  may 
despise  it ;  but  still  the  obligation  lies  upon  you ;  you  cannot 
throw  it  off.  Your  situation  is  solemn  beyond  expression. 
On  the  one  hand,  to  go  forward,  and  to  recognise  your  obli- 
gation by  a  personal  profession,  without  any  love  to  the  Sa- 
viour, is  to  insult  him  by  a  heartless  offering ;  and  on  the 
other,  to  renounce  your  allegiance  by  refusing  to  acknow- 
ledge him,  by  turning  your  baoKs  on  his  ordinances,  and 
by  indulging  in  that  course  of  life  by  which  his  religion  is 
dishonoured,  is  certainly,  whether  you  realise  it  or  not,  to 
*'  deny  him  before  men,"  and  to  incur  the  fearful  guilt  of 
apostacy  ;  of  "  drawing  back  unto  perdition." 

"  According  to  this  representation,"  1  shall  be  told,  "  the 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  59 

condition  of  many  of  our  youth  is  very  deplorable.  It  is 
their  duty,  you  say,  to  profess  the  name  of  Christ,  and  to 
seal  their  profession  at  a  sacramental  table.  This  they  can- 
not do ;  for  they  are  conscious  that  they  do  not  possess  those 
principles  and  dispositions  which  are  requisite  to  render 
such  a  profession  honest.  What  course  shall  they  steer  ? 
If  they  do  not  profess  Christ,  they  live  in  rebellion  against 
God  :  if  they  do,  they  mock  him  with  a  lie.  Which  side 
of  the  alternative  shall  they  embrace?  Continue  among  the 
profane,  and  be  consistently  wicked  ?  Or  withdraw  from 
them  in  appearance  and  play  the  hypocrite  ?" 

The  case  is,  indeed,  very  deplorable. '  Destruction  is  on 
either  hand.  For  "  the  unbelieving  shall  have  their  part  in 
the  lake  of  fire  ;  (Rev.  xxi.  6.)  and  the  hope  of  the  hypo- 
crite shall  perish  :"  (Job.  viii.  13.)  God  forbid  that  we 
should  encourage  either  a  false  profession,  or  a  refusal  to 
make  one.  The  duty  is  to  embrace  neither  side  of  the  alter- 
native. Not  to  continue  with  the  profane,  and  not  to  act 
the  hypocrite ;  but  to  receive  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  in  truth, 
and  to  walk  in  him.  "  I  cannot  do  it,"  replies  one:  and 
one,  it  may  be,  not  without  moments  of  serious  and  tender 
emotions  upon  this  very  point :  "  I  cannot  do  it."  My  soul 
bleeds  for  thee,  thou  unhappy!  But  it  must  be  done,  or 
thou  art  lost  forever.  Yet  what  is  the  amount  of  that  expres- 
sion— in  the  mouth  of  some  a  flaunting  excuse,  and  of  others, 
a  bitter  complaint — I  cannot?  Is  the  inability  to  believe  in 
Christ  different  from  an  inability  to  perform  any  other  duty  ? 
Is  there  any  harder  necessity  of  calling  the  God  of  truth  a 
liar,  in  not  believing  the  record  which  he  hath  given  of  his 
Son,  than  of  committing  any  other  sin  ?  The  inability  cre- 
ated, the  necessity  imposed,  by  the  enmity  of  the  carnal 
mind  against  God?  (Rom.  viii.  7.)  It  is  the  inability  of 
wickedness,  and  of  nothing  else.  Instead  of  being  an  apol- 
ogy, it  is  itself  the  essential  crime,  and  can  never  become 
its  own  vindication. 

But  it  is  even  so.  The  evil  does  lie  too  deep  for  the 
reach  of  human  remedies.  Yet  a  'Remedy  there  is,  and  an 
effectual  one.  It  is  here — "  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you,  and  you  shall  be  clean ;  from  all  your  filthiness 
and  from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart 
•also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you ; 
and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh  ;  and 
I  will  give  you  an  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  spirit 
within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my  statutes ;  and  ye 
shall  keep  my  judgments   and   do   them.     (Ezek.  xxxvi. 


60  INFANT  BAPTISM. 


25 — 27.)  Try  this  experiment.  Go  with  thy  *'  filthiness,' 
and  thine  "  idols  ;"  go  with  thy  "  stony  heart,"  and  thy  per- 
verse spirit,  which  are  thy  real  inability,  to  God  upon  the 
throne  of  grace  ;  spread  out  before  him  his  "  exceeding  great 
and  precious  promises ;  importune  him  as  the  hearer  of 
prayer,  in  the  name  of  Jesus,  for  the  accomplishment  of  them 
to  thyself.  Wait  for  his  mercy,  it  is  worth  waiting  for,  and 
remember  his  word — Therefore  will  the  Lord  wait,  that  he 
may  be  gracious  unto  you ;  and  therefore  will  he  be  exalted, 
that  he  may  have  mercy  upon  you  :  for  the  Lord  is  a  God 
of  judgment ;  blessed  are  all  they  that  wait  for  him.* 

5.  Finally,  from  the  foregoing  principles  and  considera- 
tions, it  is  evident,  that  the  great  body  of  Poedobaptist 
churches  have  much  to  reform  in  regard  to  their  treatment 
of  baptized  children,  and  are  bound  to  address  themselves 
to  that  reform  vAth  all  speed  and  fidelity.  It  has  been  al- 
ready observed,  that  one  great  end  for  which  the  church  of 
God  was  instituted,  was  to  train  up,  from  age  to  age,  a  seed 
to  serve  God,  and  to  be  faithful  witnesses  m  behalf  of  the 
truth  and  order  of  his  family,  in  the  midst  of  an  unbelieving 
world.  If  this  be  so,  then,  surely  the  church,  in  her  eccle- 
siastical capacity,  is  bound  carefully  to  watch  over  the  edu- 
cation, and  especially,  the  religious  education  of  her  youth- 
ful members ;  nor  is  there  any  risk  in  asserting,  that  just  in 
proportion  as  she  has  been  faithful  to  this  part  of  her  trust, 
she  has  flourished  in  orthodoxy,  piety,  and  peace  ;  and  that 
when  she  has  neglected  it,  her  children  have  grown  up  in 
ignorance,  and  too  often  in  profligacy,  and  wandered  from 
her  fold  into  every  form  of  error.  If  the  church  wishes  her 
baptized  youth  to  be  a  comfort  and  a  strength  to  their  moral 
mother ;  if  she  wishes  them  to  adhere  with  intelligence,  and 
with  dutiful  affection  to  her  distinctive  testimony ;  and  to  be 
a  generation  to  the  praise  of  Zion's  King,  when  their  fathers 
shall  have  gone  to  their  final  account ;  then  let  her,  by  all 
means,  watch  over  the  training  of  her  young  people  with  pe- 
culiar diligence  and  fidelity ;  and  consider  a  very  large  part 
of  her  duty,  as  a  church,  as  consisting  in  constant  and  faith- 
ful attention  to  the  moral  and  religious  culture  of  the  rising 
generation. 

What  is  the  reason  that  so  many  of  the  baptized  youth,  in 
almost  all  our  Poedobaptist  churches,  grow  up  in  ignorance 

*  The  two  preceding  paragraphs  are  from  the  powerful  and  eloquent 
pen  of  the  late  Rev.  J.  M.  Mason,  D.  D.  See  Christian's  Magazine, 
Vol.  II.  p.  414—416. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  61 

and  disregard  of  the  religion  of  their  parents  ?  Why  are  so 
many  of  them,  when  they  come  to  judge  and  act  for  them- 
selves, fomid  embracing  systems  of  gross  error,  if  not  total 
infidelity,  and  wandering,  in  too  many  instances,  into  the 
paths  of  degrading  profligacy  ?  It  is  not  enough  to  say,  that 
our  children  are  by  nature  depraved,  and  prone  to  the  ways 
of  eiTor  and  folly.  This  is,  doubtless,  true ;  but  it  is  not  the 
whole  truth.  It  cannot  be  questioned,  that  much  of  the  rea- 
son lies  at  the  door  of  the  church  herself,  as  well  as  of  the 
parents  of  such  youth.  The  church  has  too  often  forgotten 
that  baptism  is  as  really  a  seal  to  the  church,  as  it  is  to  the 
parents  and  the  children  who  receive  it.  And,  therefore, 
while  in  many  instances,  a  superstitious  regard  has  been  paid 
to  the  mere  rite  of  Baptism.,  a  most  deplorable  neglect  of  the 
duties  arising  from  it  has  been  indulged,  even  by  some  of  our 
most  evangelical  churches.  Parents  while  most  vigilantly 
attentive  to  the  literary,  scientific,  and  ornamental  education 
of  their  children,  have  slighted,  to  a  most  humiliating  degree, 
their  moral  and  religious  training.  They  have  sent  them  to 
schools  conducted  by  immoral,  heretical,  or  infidel  teachers, 
who,  of  course,  paid  no  regard  to  that  part  of  their  education 
which  is  unspeakably  the  most  important  of  all ;  or  who  ra- 
ther might  be  expected  to  exert  in  this  respect,  a  most  pestif- 
erous influence.  And,  after  this  cruel  treatment  of  their 
offspring,  have  appeared  to  be  utterly  surprised  when  they 
turned  out  profligates !  What  other  result  could  have  been 
expected  ? 

While  it  is  granted  that  the  primary  movements  in  the 
great  work  of  Christian  education,  are  to  be  expected  from 
the  parents ;  indeed,  if  the  work  be  not  begun  in  the  mother's 
lap,  a  most  important  period  has  been  suffered  to  pass  unim- 
proved ; — yet  the  church  has  a  duty  to  perform  in  this  mat- 
ter which  is  seldom  realized.  It  is  hers,  by  her  pastor  and 
eldership,  to  stimulate  and  guide  parents  in  this  arduous  and 
momentous  labour ;  to  see  that  proper  schools  for  her  bapti- 
zed youth  are  formed  or  selected ;  to  put  the  Bible  and  sui- 
table Catechisms,  and  other  compends  of  religious  truth  into 
their  hands ;  to  convene  them  at  stated  intervals  for  instruc- 
tion, exhortation,  and  prayer ;  to  remind  them  from  time  to 
time,  with  parental  tenderness,  of  their  duty  to  confess  Christ, 
and  recognize  their  relation  to  his  church,  by  their  own  per- 
sonal act ;  and,  if  they  fall  into  gross  error,  or  open  immo- 
rality, or  continue  to  neglect  religion,  to  exercise  toward 
them,  with  parental  affection,  and  yet  with  firmness,  that 
discipline  which  Christ  has  appointed  expressly  for  the  ben- 


62  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

efit  of  all  the  members,  and  especially  of  the  youthful  mem- 
bers of  his  covenanted  family.  If  this  plan  were  faithfully 
pursued  with  our  baptized  youth,  I  am  constrained  to  concur 
with  the  pious  Mr.  Baxter  in  believing  that  in  nineteen  cases 
out  of  twenty,  our  children,  consecrated  to  God  in  their  in- 
fancy would  grow  up  dutiful,  sober,  orderly,  and  serious,  and 
before  they  reached  mature  age,  recognise  their  membership 
by  a  personal  act,  with  sincerity  and  to  edification.  Happy 
era !  When  shall  the  church  of  God  be  blessed  with  such 
fidelity,  and  with  such  results  ? 


DISCOURSE  III. 

THE  MODE  OF  ADMINISTEBING  BAPTISM. 

Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized  ? — 
Acts  X.  47. 

Having  endeavoured,  in  the  preceding  discourses,  to  show 
that  the  baptism  of  infants  is  a  scriptural  and  reasonable  ser- 
vice, I  now  proceed  to  inquire  into  the  mode  in  which  this 
ordinance  ought  to  be  administered. 

And  here,  it  is  well  known,  that  there  is  a  very  serious  di- 
versity of  opinion.  On  the  one  hand,  our  Baptist  brethren 
believe  that  there  is  no  tnie  baptism  unless  the  whole  body 
be  plunged  under  water.  While  on  the  other  hand,  we,  and 
a  very  great  majority  of  the  Christian  world,  maintain  that 
the  mode  of  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  affusion  is  a  method 
just  as  valid  and  lawful  as  any  other.  It  will  be  my  object, 
in  the  present  discourse,  to  support  the  latter  opinion ;  or 
rather  to  maintain,  from  Scripture,  and  from  the  best  usage 
of  the  Christian  church,  that  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  affu- 
sion not  only  rests  on  as  good  authority  as  immersion  ;  but 
that  it  is  a  method  decisively  more  scriptural,  suitable,  and 
edifying. 

From  the  very  nature  of  this  subject  it  will  require  some 
little  extent  of  discussion  to  place  it  in  a  proper  light,  and 
some  closeness  of  attention  to  apprehend  and  follow  the  ar- 
guments which  may  be  employed.  Let  me  then  request 
from  you  a  candid  and  patient  hearing.  If  I  know  my  own 
heart,  it  is  my  purpose  to  exhibit  the  subject  in  the  hght  of 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  63 

truth  ;  and  to  advance  nothing  but  that  which  appears  to  rest 
on  the  authority  of  Him  who  instituted  the  ordinance  under 
consideration,  and  who  is  alone  competent  to  declare  his  will 
concerning  it.     And, 

1.  Let  us  attend  to  the  real  meaning  of  the  original 
word  which  is  employed  in  the  New  Testament  to  express 
this  sacramental  rite. 

The  Greek  word  BaTtT't^o,  which  we  translate  baptize, 
from  the  circumstance  of  its  having  been  so  constantly  and  so 
long  the  subject  of  earnest  discussion,  and  from  its  near  re- 
semblance to  the  English  word  which  we  employ  to  render 
it,  (or  we  might  rather  say,  its  identity  with  that  word)  has 
become  so  familiar  with  the  public  mind,  that  it  may  almost 
be  regarded  as  a  naturalized  term  of  our  language. 

Now,  we  contend,  that  this  word  does  not  necessarily,  nor 
even  commonly,  signify  to  immerse ;  but  also  implies  to 
wash,  to  sprinkle,  to  pour  on  water,  and  to  tinge  or  dye  with 
any  liquid  ;  and,  therefore,  accords  very  well  with  the  mode 
of  baptism  by  sprinkling  or  affusion. 

I  am  aware,  indeed,  that  our  Baptist  brethren,  as  before 
intimated,  believe,  and  confidently  assert,  that  the  only  legit- 
imate and  authorised  meaning  of  this  word,  is  to  immerse ; 
and  that  it  is  never  employed,  in  a  single  case,  in  any  part 
of  the  Bible,  to  express  the  application  of  water  in  any  other 
manner.  I  can  venture,  my  friends,  to  assure  you,  with  the 
utmost  confidence,  that  this  representation  is  wholly  incor- 
rect. I  can  assure  you,  that  the  word  which  we  render  bap- 
tize, does  legitimately  signify  the  application  of  water  in  any 
way,  as  well  as  by  immersion.  Nay,  I  can  assure  you,  if 
the  most  mature  and  competent  Greek  scholars  that  ever  lived 
may  be  allowed  to  decide  in  this  case,  that  many  examples 
of  the  use  of  this  word  occur  in  Scripture,  in  which  it  not 
only  may,  but  manifestly  must  signify  sprinkling,  perfusion 
or  washing  in  any  way.  Without  entering  into  the  minute 
details  of  Greek  criticism  in  reference  to  this  term,  which 
would  be  neither  suitable  to  our  purpose,  nor  consistent  with 
our  limits  ;  it  will  suffice  to  refer  to  a  few  of  those  passages 
of  Scripture  which  will  at  once  illustrate  and  confirm  the  po- 
sition which  I  have  laid  down. 

Thus,  when  the  Evangelists  tell  us  that  the  Scribes  and 
Pharisees  invariably  "  washed  (in  the  original,  baptized) 
their  hands  before  dinner;"  when  we  are  told  that,  when 
they  come  in  from  the  market,  "  except  they  wash,  (in  the 
original,  *  except  they  baptize,')  they  eat  not;"  when  we 
read  of  the  Pharisees  being  so  scrupulous  about  the  "wash- 


64  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

ing  (in  the  original,  the  *  baptising')  of  cups,  and  pots,  and 
brazen  vessels,  and  tables?"  when  our  Saviour  speaks  of 
his  disciples  being  "  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,"  in  man- 
ifest allusion  to  the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost ;  when  John  the  Baptist  predicted,  that 
they  should  be  "  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with 
fire,"  in  reference  to  the  Holy  Ghost  sitting  upon  each  of 
them  as  with  "cloven  tongues  of  fire"  on  the  same  day: 
when  we  find  the  apostle  representing  the  children  of  Israel 
as  all  baptized  by  a  cloud  passing  over  without  touching 
them  ;  and  also  as  baptized  in  the  Red  Sea,  when  we  know 
that  none  of  them  were  immersed  in  passing  through,  or,  at 
most,  only  sprinkled  by  the  spray  of  the  watery  walls  on 
each  side  ;  for  we  are  expressly  told  that  they  went  through 
"  dry  shod:''''  when  Judas,  in  celebrating  the  Paschal  supper 
with  his  Master,  in  dipping  a  morsel  of  bread  on  a  bunch  of 
herbs  in  the  "  sop"  in  the  dish,  is  said,  by  Christ  himself, 
to  "baptize  his  hand  in  the  dish,"  (as  it  is  in  the  original, 
Matt.  xxvi.  23.)  which  no  one  can  imagine  implies  the  im-. 
mersion  of  his  whole  hand  in  the  gravy  of  which  they  were 
all  partaking;  I  say,  when  the  word  "baptize"  is  used  in 
these  and  similar  senses,  it  surely  cannot  mean  in  any  of 
these  cases  to  immerse  or  plunge.  If  a  man  is  said  by  the 
inspired  Evangelist  to  be  baptized,  when  his  hands  only  are 
washed:  and  if  "tables"  (or  couches,  on  which  they  recli- 
ned at  meals,  as  appears  from  the  original)  are  spoken  of  as 
"baptized,"  when  the  cleansing  of  water  was  applied  to 
them  in  any  manner,  and  when  the  complete  immersion  of 
them  in  water  is  out  of  the  question ;  surely  nothing  can  be 
plainer  than  that  the  Holy  Spirit  who  indited  the  Scriptures, 
does  not  restrict  the  meaning  of  this  word  to  the  idea  of 
plunging,  or  total  immersion. 

Again :  the  New  Testament  meaning  of  this  term  appears 
from  the  manner  in  which  it  is  applied  to  the  ablutions  of  the 
ceremonial  economy.  The  aposde  in  writing  to  the  He- 
brews, and  speaking  of  the  Jewish  ritual,  says,  "  It  stood 
only  in  meats  and  drinks  and  divers  washings,"  (in  the  ori- 
ginal '  divers  baptisms.')  Now  we  know  that  by  far  the 
greater  part  of  these  "  divers  washings"  were  accomplished 
by  sprinkling  and  affusion,  and  not  by  immersion.  The 
blood  of  the  Paschal  Lamb  was  directed  to  be  "  sprinkled" 
on  the  door-posts  of  the  Israelites,  as  a  token  of  Jehovah's 
favour,  and  of  protection  from  death.  When  they  entered 
into  covenant  with  God  at  Sinai,  their  solemn  vows  were 
directed   to  be   sealed  by   a   similar   sign.      After    Moses 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  65 

had  spoken  every  precept  to  all  the  people  according  to  the 
law,  and  they  had  given  their  consent,  and  promised  to  obey : 
he  took  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice,  and  water,  and  "  sprinkled" 
both  the  book  and  the  people,  (Heb.  ix.  19.)  On  the  great 
day  of  the  atonement,  when  the  High  Priest  went  into  the 
most  Holy  place,  he  "  sprinlded"  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice 
on  the  Mercy  Seat,  as  a  token  of  propitiation  and  cleansing. 
When  any  individual  was  to  be  cleansed,  and  delivered  from 
legal  guilt,  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice  was  to  be  "  sprinkled" 
upon  him  seven  times.  In  like  manner  at  other  times,  the 
consecrated  oil  was  to  be  *'  sprinkled"  upon  him  who  applied 
for  deliverance  from  pollution. 

Thus  the  people  were  to  be  ceremonially  delivered  from 
their  uncleanness.*  When  Aaron  and  his  sons  were  set  apart 
to  their  office,  they  were  sprinkled  with  blood,  as  a  sign  of 
purification.  When  tents  or  dwelling  houses  were  to  be 
cleansed  from  pollution,  it  was  done  among  other  things,  by 
sprinkling  them  with  water.  When  the  vessels,  used  in  do- 
mestic economy,  were  to  be  ceremonially  cleansed,  the  object 
was  effected  in  the  same  manner,  by  sprinkling  them  with 
water.  (See  Numbers,  xix.  17 — 22.)  In  a  few  cases,  and 
but  a  few,  the  mode  of  cleansing  by  plunging  in  water  is  pre- 
scribed. Now  these  are  the  "  divers  baptisms"  of  which  the 
apostle  speaks.  It  is  worthy  of  notice  that  they  are  divers, 
(Sca^opotg).  If  they  h-ad  been  of  one  kind — immersion  only 
— this  term  could  not  with  propriety  have  been  used.  But 
they  were  of  different  kinds — some  sprinkling,  others  pour- 
ing, some  scouring  and  rinsing,  (see  Leviticus  vi.  28,)  and 
some  plunging  :  but  all  pronounced  by  the  inspired  apostle  to 
be  baptism. 

But  happily,  the  inspired  apostle  does  not  leave  us  in  doubt 
what  those  "divers  baptisms"  were,  of  which  he  speaks. 
He  singles  out  and  presents  sprinkling  as  his  chosen  and 
only  specimen.  "  For"  says  he,  in  the  13th,  19th,  and  21st 
verses  of  the  same  chapter,  explaining  what  he  means  by 
*  divers  baptisms,'  "  if  the  blood  of  bulls,  and  of  goats,  and  the 
ashes  of  an  heifer,  sprinkling  the  unclean,  sanctifieth  to  the 
purifying  of  the  flesh  ;  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of 
Christ,  &,c.  For  when  Moses  had  spoken  every  precept  to 
all  the  people,  according  to  the  law,  he  took  the  blood  of 
calves,  and  of  goats,  with  water,  and  scarlet  wool,  and  hys- 

*  See  Exodus,  xxix.  40;  Leviticus,  i.  3,  4,5,  8,  9,  14,  and  ]5  chap- 
ters; Numbers,  19th  chapter,  and  Deuteronomy,  12th  and  15th  chap- 
ters. 

22 


06  IIVFANT  BAPTISM. 

sop,  and  sprinkled  both  the  book  and  all  the  people.  More- 
over, he  sprinkled  likewise  with  blood  both  the  tabernacle, 
and  all  the  vessels  of  the  ministry."  If  the  Apostle  under- 
stood his  own  meaning,  then,  it  is  manifest  that  in  speaking 
of  "  divers  baptisms,"  he  had  a  principal  reference  to  the  ap- 
plication of  blood  and  of  water  by  sprinkling. 

In  short,  it  is  perfectly  manifest,  to  every  one  competent 
to  judge  in  the  case,  that  the  Greek  words  which  we  trans- 
late baptize  and  baptism,  do  undoubtedly  signify,  in  a  num- 
ber of  cases  in  both  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the  wash- 
ing with  water,  or  the  application  of  water  in  any  way.  To 
immerse,  is,  undoubtedly,  one  of  the  senses  which  may  be 
applied  to  the  words.  But  it  is  so  far  from  being  the  univer- 
sal, the  necessary  meaning,  as  our  Baptist  brethren  assert, 
that  it  is  not  even  the  common  meaning.  And  I  am  well 
persuaded  that  the  venerable  Dr.  Owen,  certainly  one  of  the 
greatest  and  best  men  of  the  day  in  which  he  lived,  is  borne 
out  by  truth  when  he  pronounces,  "  That  no  one  instance 
can  be  given  in  Scripture,  in  which  the  word  which  we  ren- 
der baptize,  does  necessarily  signify  either  to  dip  or  plunge." 
In  every  case  the  word  admits  of  a  different  sense ;  and  it  is 
really  imposing  on  public  credulity  to  insist  that  it  always 
does,  and  necessarily  must  signify  immersion.* 

In  like  manner,  if  we  examine  the  senses  manifestly  at- 
tached to  Bart-r-c^  and  BartT'i^o,  by  the  best  Greek  classical 
writers,  as  shown  by  the  ablest  lexicographers  and  critics, 
the  same  result  will  be  established ;  in  other  words,  it  will 
appear  that  these  words  are  used,  and  often  used,  to  express 
the  ideas  of  cleansing,  pouring,  washing,  wetting,  and  ting- 
ing, or  dying,  as  well  as  immersion  :  and,  of  course,  that 
no  certain  evidence  in  favour  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Baptist 
brethren,  can  be  derived  from  this  source.  Indeed,  a  late 
eminent  anti-poedobaptist  writer  while  he  strenuously  main- 
tams  that  BartTt^co,  always  signifies  to  immerse,  acknow- 
ledges that  he  has  "  all  the  lexicographers  and  commentators 
against  him  in  that  opinion."  [Carson  on  Baptism,  p.  79.) 
How  far  the  confidence  which,  in  the  face  of  this  acknow- 
ledgment, he  expresses,  that  they  are  all  wrong,  and  that  his 
interpretation  alone  is  right,  is  either  modest  or  well-founded, 
must  be  left  to  the  impartial  reader. 

*  See  this  point  set  in  a  clear  and  strong  liglit  by  the  Rev.  Dr. 
Woods,  in  his  "  Lectures  on  Infant  Baptism  ;"  by  the  Rev.  Professor 
Stuart,  in  the  "  Biblical  Repository,"  No.  10 ;  by  the  Rev.  Professor 
PonO.,  of  Maine,  in  his  "  Treatise  on  Christian  Baptism,"  in  the  *  Bib- 
lical Repertory,'  Vol.  III.  p.  475,  &lc.  &c. 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  67 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  our  Baptist  brethren  can  gain  no- 
thing by  an  appeal  to  the  original  word  employed  in  the 
New  Testament  to  express  this  ordinance.  It  decides  no- 
thing. All  impartial  judges — ^by  which  I  mean  all  the  most 
profound  and  mature  Greek  scholars,  who  are  neither  theolo- 
gians nor  sectarians — agree  in  pronouncing,  that  the  term  in 
question  imports  the  application  of  water  by  sprinkling,  pour- 
ing, tinging,  wetting,  or  in  any  other  way,  as  well  as  by 
plunging  the  whole  body  under  it. 

2.  There  is  nothing  in  the  thing  signified  by  baptism 
which  renders  immersion  more  necessary  or  proper  than 
any  other  mode  of  applying  water  in  this  ordinance. 

Our  Baptist  brethren  suppose  and  insist  that  there  is  some- 
thing in  the  emblematical  meaning  of  baptism,  which  renders 
dipping  or  plunging  the  only  proper  mode  of  administering 
the  ordinance.  And  hence  nothing  is  more  common,  among 
the  brethren  of  that  denomination,  than  to  pour  ridicule  on  all 
other  modes  of  baptizing,  as  entirely  deficient  in  meaning  and 
expressiveness.  I  am  persuaded,  my  friends,  that  the  slightest 
examination  of  the  subject  will  convince  every  impartial 
inquirer  that  there  is  no  solid  ground  for  this  representation. 

It  is  granted,  on  all  hands,  that  the  thing  principally  signi- 
fied by  baptism,  is  the  renovation  and  sanctification  of  the 
heart,  by  the  cleansing  influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This 
was,  undoubtedly,  the  blessing  of  which  circumcision  was  an 
emblem.  It  signified,  as  the  inspired  Apostle  tells  us,  "  the 
putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh."  (Colossians,  ii. 
11.)  "  He  is  not  a  Jew,"  says  the  same  apostle,  "  who  is 
one  outwardly;  neither  is  that  circumcision  which  is  outward 
in  the  flesh ;  but  he  is  a  Jew  which  is  one  inwardly ;  and 
circumcision  is  that  of  the  heart,  in  the  spirit,  and  not  in  the 
letter."  (Romans,  ii.  28,  29.)  In  like  manner,  baptism 
signifies  the  renovation  of  the  heart  by  the  special  operation 
of  the  Spirit  of  God.  It  is  intended  ever  to  keep  us  in  mind, 
by  a  very  significant  and  striking  emblem,  that  we  are  all  by 
nature  polluted  and  guilty,  and  that  we  stand  in  need  of  the 
pardoning  and  purifying  grace  of  God  by  a  crucified  Re- 
deemer. 

Now,  when  the  inspired  writers  speak  of  imparting  the 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit  to  the  children  of  men,  by  what 
kind  of  figure  is  that  blessing  commonly  expressed?  I 
answer — as  every  one  who  is  familiar  with  the  Bible  will 
concur  in  answering — much  more  frequently  by  sprinkling 
and  pouring  omt,  than  by  any  other  form  of  expression.  Thus 
the  prophet  Isaiah  speaks  again  and  again  of  the  Spirit  being 


68  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

poured  out  upon  the  people  from  on  high.  (Isaiah,  xxxii. 
15;  xUv.  3.)  Take  a  single  specimen — "I  will  pour  water 
upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry  ground ;  I 
will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my  blessing  upon 
thine  offspring."  The  prophets,  Ezekiel,  Joel,  and  Zechariah, 
repeatedly  employ  the  same  language ;  (Ezekiel,  xxxix.  29. 
Joel,  ii.  28,  29.  Zechariah,  xii.  10.)  and  this  form  of 
expression  is  also  found  more  than  once  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. (Acts,  ii.  17,  18  ;  x.  45.)  Indeed  it  seems  to  be  the 
favourite  language  of  the  Spirit  of  God  when  speaking  on  this 
subject.  In  other  places  the  term  sprinkling  is  employed  to 
express  the  same  idea.  Accordingly,  Jehovah  says,  by  the 
prophet  Ezekiel,  "  I  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and 
ye  shall  be  clean:  from  all  your  filthiness,  and  from  all  your 
idols  will  I  cleanse  you.  A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you, 
and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you ;  and  I  will  take  away 
the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  an  heart 
of  flesh."  (Ezekiel,  xxxvi.  25,  26.)  And  in  like  manner, 
the  prophet  Isaiah,  when  speaking  of  the  coming  of  the 
Messiah,  and  the  benefits  accruing  to  the  church  in  New 
Testament  times,  fortels — "  So  shall  he  sprinkle  many 
nations."  (Ezek.  Hi.  15.)  Again,  this  divine  sanctifying 
influence  in  its  application  to  men,  is  represented  by  the 
Psalmist,  and  by  the  prophet  Hosea,  under  the  similitude  of 
rain,  which  we  know  descends  in  drops,  sprinkling  the  earth, 
and  its  verdant  furniture.  (Psalm,  Ixxii.  6.  Hosea,  vi.  3.) 
"  He  shall  come  down  like  rain  upon  the  mown  grass ;  as 
showers  that  water  the  earth." 

But  to  come  still  nearer  to  the  point  in  hand.  We  have 
not  only  seen  that  whenever  the  inspired  writers  wish  to 
express  the  idea  of  the  Holy  Spirit  being  imparted  to  men, 
either  to  sanctify  their  hearts,  or  to  furnish  them  with  mi- 
raculous powers,  the  figure  of  "pouring  out"  is,  in  almost 
all  cases,  adopted,  and  that  of  immersion  never;  but,  further, 
when  they  use  the  specific  term  which  expresses  the  ordinance 
before  us ;  when  they  speak  of  the  "  baptism  of  the  Spirit," 
how  do  they  explain  it?  Hear  the  explanation  by  the  Master 
himself.  The  Saviour,  after  his  resurrection,  told  his  disciples, 
that  '*  John  truly  baptized  with  water,  but  they  should  be 
baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghost"  not  many  days  from  that 
time,  (Acts  i.  4,  5,)  and  directing  them  to  remain  in  Jerusalem 
until  this  promise  should  be  fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
And  how  did  the  Holy  Spirit  baptize  the  people  then  ?  By 
immersion  ?  Not  at  all ;  but  by  being  "  poured  out."  Ac- 
cordingly, the   apostle  Peter,  in  giving   an  account  to  his 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  69 

brethren  of  what  occurred  in  the  house  of  CorneUus,  declares  : 
"  And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as 
on  Its  at  the  beginning,  (that  is  at  the  beginning  of  the  New 
Testament  economy,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost) .  Then  remem- 
bered I  the  words  of  the  Lord,  how  he  said,  John,  indeed 
baptized  with  water  ;  but  ye  shall  be  baptized  with  the  Holy 
Ghost."  (Acts  xi.  15,  16.)  The  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  then,  consisted  in  the  pouring  out,  or  effusion  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  This  was  the  baptism  predicted  by  the  prophets. 
This  was  the  baptism  which  our  Lord  himself  promised. 
And  this  was  the  baptism  realized  on  the  day  of  Pentecost. 
I  ask,  again,  was  this  immersion  ?  Yet  it  was  baptism.  And 
here,  we  may  add  is  an  indubitable  example  of  the  word 
baptism  being  used  in  a  sense  which  cannot  possibly  imply 
immersion. 

Surely  it  is  not  without  design  or  meaning,  that  we  find 
language  of  this  kind  so  generally,  I  might  almost  say,  so 
uniformly  used.  Can  a  single  instance  be  produced  from  the 
word  of  God  in  which  the  cleansing  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  are  symbolized  by  dipping  or  plunging  into  water,  or 
into  oil  or  blood?  Or  can  a  single  example  be  found  in 
which  believers  are  represented  as  being  dipped  or  plunged 
into  the  Holy  Ghost?  No  such  example  is  recollected. 
Whenever  the  inspired  writers  speak  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
being  imparted  to  the  children  of  men,  either  in  his  sanctify- 
ing power,  or  his  miraculous  gifts,  they  never  represent  the 
benefit  under  the  figure  of  immersion;  but  always,  unless  my 
memory  deceives  me,  by  the  figures  of  "  sprinlding,"  "  pour- 
ing out,"  "  falling,"  or  "  resting  upon"  from  on  high.  Now, 
if  baptism,  so  far  as  it  has  a  symbolical  meaning,  is  intended 
to  represent  the  cleansing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as  all  agree ;  it 
is  evident  that  no  mode  of  applying  the  baptismal  water  can 
be  more  strikingly  adapted  to  convey  its  symbolical  meaning, 
or  more  strongly  expressive  of  the  great  benefit  which  the 
ordinance  is  intended  to  hold  forth  and  seal,  than  sprinkling 
or  pouring.  Nay,  is  it  not  manifest  that  this  mode  of  admin- 
istering the  ordinance,  is  far  more  in  accordance  with  Bible 
language,  and  Bible  allusion,  than  any  other?  Surely,  then, 
baptism  by  sprinkling  or  affusion,  would  have  been  treated 
with  less  scorn  by  our  Baptist  brethren,  if  they  had  recol- 
lected that  these  are,  invariably,  the  favourite  figures  of  the 
inspired  writers  when  they  speak  of  the  richest  covenant 
blessings  which  the  Spirit  of  God  imparts  to  his  beloved 
people.  Surely  all  attempts  to  turn  this  mode  of  applying 
the  sacramental  water  in  baptism  into  ridicule,  is  really 
22*  7* 


70  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

nothing  less  than  shameless  ridicule  of  the  statements  and  the 
language  of  God's  own  word  ? 

3.  The  circumstances  attending  the  several  cases  of  bap- 
tism recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  render  it  highly  prob- 
able,  not  to  say  morally  certain,  that  the  immersion  of  the 
whole  body  could  not  have  been  the  mode  of  baptism  then 
commonly  adopted. 

The  baptism  of  the  three  thousand  converts  made  by  the 
instrumentality  of  Peter's  preaching,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost, 
is  the  first  remarkable  instance  of  Christian  baptism  which 
occurs  in  the  New  Testament  history.  Christ  had  promised, 
before  he  left  his  disciples,  that  he  would  send  to  them  his 
Holy  Spirit,  and  the  favourite  expression  by  which  he  was 
accustomed  to  designate  this  gift,  was  that  he  would  pour  out 
the  Holy  Spirit  upon  them.  Accordingly,  in  ten  days  after 
his  ascension  to  heaven,  he  was  pleased,  in  a  most  extraor- 
dinary manner,  to  fulfil  his  promise.  The  Spirit  was  poured 
out.with  a  power  unknown  before.  And,  what  is  remarkable, 
the  apostle  Peter  assures  the  assembled  multitude,  that  what 
they  then  witnessed  was  a  fiilfilment  of  the  prediction  by  the 
prophet  Joel,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  should  be  imparted  in  a 
manner  prefigured  by  the  term  pouring  out,  or  affusion. 
Three  thousand  were  converted  under  the  overwhelming  im- 
pression of  divine  truth,  dispensed  in  a  single  sermon ;  and 
were  all  baptized,  and  *'  added  to  the  church"  in  a  single 
day.  From  the  short  account  given  of  this  wonderful  trans- 
action, we  gather,  that  the  multitude  on  whom  this  impression 
was  made,  was  convened  in  some  part  of  the  temple.  They 
seem  to  have  come  together  about  the  third  hour  of  the  day, 
that  is,  nine  o'clock  in  the  morning,  according  to  the  Jewish 
mode  of  computing  time.  At  least,  when  Peter  rose  to  com- 
mence his  sermon,  that  was  the  hour.  Besides  the  discourse 
of  which  we  have  a  sketch  in  the  chapter  containing  the 
account,  we  are  told  he  exhorted  and  testified  with  many 
other  words.  All  these  services,  together  with  receiving  the 
confession  of  three  thousand  converts,  must  unavoidably  have 
consumed  several  hours ;  leaving  only  four  or  five  hours,  at 
the  utmost,  for  baptizing  the  whole  number.  But  they  were 
all  baptized  that  same  day.  We  read  nothing,  however,  of 
the  apostles  taking  the  converts  away  firom  "  Solomon's 
Porch,"  or  wherever  else  they  were  assembled,  to  any  river 
or  stream  for  the  sake  of  baptizing  them.  Indeed,  at  that 
season  of  the  year,  there  was  no  river  or  brook  in  the  imme- 
diate neighbourhood  of  Jerusalem,  which  would  admit  of 
immersing  a  human  being.     Besides,  is  it  likely  that  this 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  71 

great  multitude,  most  of  whom  were  probably  strangers  in 
Jerusalem,  could  have  been  furnished  with  such  a  change  of 
raiment  as  health  and  decorum  required ;  or  that  they  could 
have  been  baptized  without  clothing  altogether ;  or  remained 
on  the  ground,  through  the  public  exercises,  in  their  wet 
clothes  ?  Surely  all  these  suppositions  are  so  utterly  impro- 
bable that  they  may  be  confidently  rejected.  But,  above  all, 
was  it  physically  possible,  supposing  all  the  apostles  to  have 
officiated  in  the  administration  of  this  ordinance,  for  twelve 
men  to  have  immersed  three  thousand  persons  in  four  or  five 
hours  ;  which  we  have  seen  must  have  been  the  case,  if,  as 
is  evident,  the  preaching,  the  examination  of  candidates,  and 
the  baptizing  of  the  whole  number  took  place  after  nine 
o'clock  in  the  forenoon  ?  Those  who  have  witnessed  a  series 
of  baptisms  by  immersion  know  how  arduous  and  exhausting 
is  the  bodily  effort  which  it  requires.  To  immerse  a  single 
person,  with  due  decoram  and  solemnity,  will  undoubtedly 
require  from  five  to  six  minutes.  Of  course,  to  immerse  one 
hundred,  would  consume,  at  this  rate,  between  nine  and  ten 
hours.  Now,  even  if  so  much  time  could  possibly  be  assigned 
to  this  part  of  the  work,  on  the  same  day,  which  is  plainly 
inadmissible,  can  we  suppose  that  the  twelve  apostles  stood, 
for  nine  or  ten  hours,  themselves,  in  the  water,  constantly 
engaged  in  a  series  of  efforts  among  the  most  severe  and 
exhausting  to  human  strength  that  can  well  be  undertaken  ?* 
To  imagine  this,  would  be  among  the  most  improbable,  not 
to  say  extravagant  imaginations  that  could  be  formed  on  such 
a  subject.  Yet  even  this  supposition,  unreasonable  as  it  is, 
falls  far  short  of  providing  for  even  one  half  of  the  requisite 
number.  The  man,  therefore,  who  can  believe  that  the  three 
thousand  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  were  baptized  by  immer- 
sion, must  have  great  faith,  and  a  wonderful  facility  in  accom- 
modating his  belief  to  his  wishes. 

With  regard  to  tha  baptism  of  John,  many  of  the  same 
remarks  are  entirely  applicable.  Our  Baptist  brethren  uni- 
versally take  for  granted  that  John's  baptism  was  performed 

*  "  A  gentleman  of  veracity  told  tlie  writer,  that  he  was  once  pre- 
sent when  forty-seven  were  dipped  in  one  day,  in  the  usual  way.  The 
first  operator  began,  and  went  through  the  ceremony,  until  he  had 
dipped  tioenty.Jive  persons;  when  he  was  so  fatigued,  that  he  was 
compelled  to  give  it  up  to  the  other,  who  with  great  apparent  difficulty 
dipped  the  other  twenty. two.  Both  appeared  completely  exhausted,  and 
went  off  the  ground  into  a  house  hard  by,  to  change  their  clothes  and 
refresh  themselves."  Scripture  Directory  for  Baptism  by  a  Lay- 
man, 14. 


72  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

by  immersion ;  and  on  the  ground  of  that  assumption,  they 
speak  with  great  confidence  of  their  mode  of  baptism  as  the 
only  lawful  mode.  Now,  even  if  it  were  certain  that  the 
forerunner  of  Christ  had  always  baptized  by  immersion,  still 
it  would  be  little  to  the  purpose,  since  it  is  plain  that  John's 
baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism.  Had  this  been  the  case, 
then,  it  is  evident,  that  a  large  part  of  the  population  of 
"  Jerusalem  and  Judea,  and  of  the  region  round  about  Jordan," 
would  have  been  professing  Christians.  But  was  it  so? 
Every  reader  of  the  New  Testament  history  knows  it  was 
not;  that,  on  the  contrary,  it  is  apparent  from  the  whole 
narrative,  that  a  great  majority  of  those  whom  John  baptized, 
continued  to  stand  aloof  from  the  Saviour.  But  what  decides 
this  point,  beyond  the  possibility  of  appeal  or  cavil,  is  the 
statement  in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, where  we  are  told  that  some  who  had  received  John's 
baptism,  were  afterwards  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord 
Jesus.  Some  opponents  of  this  conclusion  have  suggested 
that  in  the  narrative  given  of  this  transaction,  (Acts  xix.  1 — 6,) 
we  are  to  consider  the  5th  verse,  not  as  the  language  of  the 
inspired  historian,  but  as  a  continuL-tion  of  Paul's  discourse, 
as  recorded  in  the  4th  verse.  Professor  Stuart,  in  his  remarks 
on  the  "  Mode  of  Baptism,"  in  the  "  Biblical  Repository," 
(No.  X.  386,)  has  shown  conclusively  that  this  gloss  is 
wholly  inadmissible;  and  even  leads  to  the  most  evident 
absurdity.  But  there  is  no  evidence,  and  I  will  venture  to 
say,  no  probability,  that  John  ever  baptized  by  immersion. 
The  evangelist  informs  us  that  he  baptized  great  multitudes. 
It  appears,  as  before  suggested,  that  "  all  Jerusalem,  and  all 
Judea,  and  the  region  round  about  Jordan,"  flocked  to  his 
ministry,  and  "  were  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confessing 
their  sins."  Some  have  supposed  that  he  baptized  two  mil- 
lions of  people.  But  suppose  the  number  to  be  one-twentieth 
part  of  this  computation.  The  smallest  estimate  that  we  can 
consider  as  answering  the  description  of  the  inspired  historians 
is,  that  he  baptized  one  hundred  thousand  individuals.  And 
this,  in  about  one  year  and  a  half.  That  is,  he  must  have 
immersed  nearly  two  hundred,  upon  an  average,  every  day, 
during  the  whole  of  the  period  in  question.  Now,  I  ask,  is  it 
possible  for  human  strength,  day  after  day,  for  more  than  five 
hundred  days  together,  to  undergo  such  labour  ?  It  cannot 
be  imagined.  The  thing  is  not  merely  improbable  ;  it  is 
impossible.  To  accomplish  so  much,  it  would  have  been 
necessary  that  the  zealous  Baptist  should  spend  the  whole  of 
every  day  standing  in  the  water,  for  a  year  and  a  half,  and 


INFANT  BAPTISM. 


73 


even  this  Avould  have  failed  altogether  of  being  sufficient. 
say  again,  with  confidence,  it  is  impossible. 

But  that  John  baptized  by  immersion  is  utterly  incredible 
on  another  account.  Can  we  imagine  that  so  great  a  multi- 
tude could  have  been  provided  on  the  spot  with  convenient 
changes  of  raiment  to  admit  of  their  being  plunged  consistently 
Avith  their  health?  Or  can  we  suppose  that  the  greater  part 
of  their  number,  would  remain  for  hours  on  the  ground  in 
their  wet  clothes  ?  And  if  not,  would  decency  have  permitted 
multitudes  of  both  sexes  to  appear,  and  to  undergo  the 
administration  of  the  ordinance  in  that  mode,  in  a  state  of 
entire  nakedness  ?  Surely  we  need  not  wait  for  an  answer. 
Neither  supposition  is  admissible. 

Nor  is  this  reasoning  at  all  invalidated  by  the  statement  of 
one  of  the  evangelists,  that  John  "  baptized  at  Enon,  near 
Salim,  because  there  was  much  water  there ;"  or,  as  it  is  in 
the  original,  "  because  there  were  inany  vjciters  there."  For, 
independently  of  immersion  altogether,  plentiful  streams  of 
water  were  absolutely  necessary  for  the  constant  refreshment 
and  sustenance  of  the  many  thousands  who  were  encamped 
from  day  to  day,  to  witness  the  preaching  and  the  baptism  of 
this  extraordinary  man ;  together  with  the  beasts  employed 
for  their  transportation.  Only  figure  to  yourselves  a  large 
encampment  of  men,  women,  and  children,  consisting  almost 
continually  of  many  thousand  souls,  continuing  together  for  a 
number  of  days  in  succession;  constantly  coming  and  going; 
and  all  this  in  a  warm  clim^ate,  where  springs  and  wells  of 
water  were  comparatively  rare  and  precious  ;  only  figure  to 
yourselves  such  an  assemblage,  and  such  a  scene,  and  you 
will  be  at  no  loss  to  perceive  why  it  was  judged  important  to 
convene  them  near  the  banks  of  abundant  streams  of  water. 
Had  not  this  been  done,  they  must,  in  a  few  hours,  have 
either  quitted  the  ground,  or  sufi*ered  real  distress. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  often  and  confidently  as  the  baptism 
of  John  has  been  cited  as  conclusive,  in  favour  of  immersion, 
it  cannot  be  considered  as  affording  the  least  solid  ground  foi 
such  a  conclusion.  There  is  not  the  smallest  probability  that 
he  ever  baptized  an  individual  in  this  manner.  As  a  poor 
man,  who  lived  in  the  wilderness ;  whose  raiment  was  of  the 
meanest  kind ;  and  whose  food  was  such  alone  as  the  desert 
afforded ;  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  he  possessed  appropriate 
vessels  for  administering  baptism  to  multitudes  by  pouring  or 
sprinkling.  He,  therefore,  seems  to  have  made  use  of  the 
neighbouring  stream  of  water  for  this  purpose,  descending  its 
banks,  and  setting  his  feet  on  its  maro-in,  so  as  to  admit  of  his 


74  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

using  a  handful,  to  answer  the  symbolical  purpose  intended 
by  the  application  of  water  in  baptism. 

The  circumstances  attending  the  baptism  of  our  blessed 
Saviour  by  John,  have  been  often  adduced  by  our  Baptist 
brethren  as  strongly  favouring  the  practice  of  immersion: 
but  when  they  are  examined,  they  will  be  found  to  afford  no 
real  aid  to  that  cause.  In  our  common  translation,  indeed, 
the  Evangelist  Matthew  tells  us,  (ch.  iii.  16,)  That  Jesus, 
when  he  was  baptized,  went  up  straightway  out  of  the  water, 
(fee;  and  the  Evangelist  Mark  tells  us,  (ch.  i.  9,  10,)  That 
Jesus  was  baptized  of  John  in  Jordan ;  and  straightway, 
coming  up  out  of  the  water,  he  saw  the  heavens  opened,  (fee. 
This  is  considered  by  many  superficial  readers  as  decisive  in 
establishing  the  fact  that  immersion  must  have  been  used  on 
that  occasion ;  but  the  moment  we  look  into  the  original,  it 
becomes  evident  that  the  language  of  both  the  Evangelists 
imports  only  that  Jesus,  after  he  was  baptized,  went  up  from 
the  water,  that  is,  ascended  the  banks  from  the  river.  No- 
thing more  is,  unquestionably,  imported  by  the  terms  used ; 
and  this  leaves  the  mode  of  administering  the  ordinance 
altogether  undecided.  Laying  aside  his  sandals,  he  might 
only  have  stepped  a  few  inches  into  the  river,  or  he  might 
have  gone  merely  to  the  water's  edge,  without  stepping  into 
it  at  all.* 

The  baptism  of  Paul,  by  Ananias,  is  another  of  the  scrip 
tural  examples  of  the  administration  of  the  ordinance  in 
question,  which  yet  affords  not  the  smallest  hint  or  presump- 
tion in  favour  of  immersion ;  but  rather  the  contrary. 

We  are  told  that  Paul,  the  infuriated  persecutor,  while 
"  breathing  out  threatenings  and  slaughter  against  the  disci- 
ples of  the  Lord,"  was  met  on  his  way  to  Damascus,  and  by 
the  mighty  power  of  the  Saviour  whom  he  persecuted,  was 
stricken  down,  and  fell  prostrate  and  blind  to  the  ground.  In 
thig  feeble  state  he  was  lifted  up,  and  "  led  by  the  hand,  and 
carried  into  Damascus  ;  and  he  was  there  three  days  without 
sight,  and  did  neither  eat  nor  drink."  In  these  circumstances, 
Ananias,  a  servant  of  God,  is  directed  to  go  to  him,  and  teach 
him  what  to  do.  "  And  Ananias,"  we  are  told,  *'  went  his 
way,  and  entered  into  the  house ;  and  putting  his  hands  on 
him,  said,  Brother  Saul,  the  Lord,  even  Jesus,  that  appeared 
unto  thee  in  the  way,  as  thou  earnest,  hath  sent  me,  that  thou 

*  "  See  a  very  luminous  and  satisfactory  view  of  the  record  of  this 
baptism,  by  Professor  Stuart,  of  Andover,  in  the  Biblical  Repository, 
No.  X,  p.  319,  320 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  75 

mightest  receive  thy  sight,  and  be  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost 
And  now,  why  tarriest  thou?  Arise,  and  be  baptized,  and 
wash  away  thy  sins,  calling  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  ?  And 
immediately  there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been  scales ; 
and  he  received  sight  forthwith,  and  arose,  and  was  baptized. 
And  when  he  had  received  meat  he  was  strengthened." 
(Acts,  ix.  and  xxii.  compared.) 

The  attentive  reader  will  no  doubt,  take  notice  that  in  this 
narrative  there  is  fnot  a  single  turn  of  expression  which  looks 
like  baptizing  by  immersion.  There  is  no  hint  that  Paul 
changed  his  raiment ;  or  that  he  and  Ananias  went  out  of  the 
house  to  a  neighbouring  pond  or  stream.  On  the  contrary, 
every  part  of  the  statement  wears  a  different  aspect.  Paul, 
when  Ananias  went  to  him,  was  evidently  extremely  feeble. 
He  was  sitting  or  lying  in  the  house,  perfecdy  blind,  and 
having  taken  no  sustenance  for  three  days.  Can  it  be  ima- 
gined that  a  wise  and  humane  man,  in  these  circumstances, 
would  have  had  him  carried  forth,  and  plunged  into  cold 
water,  which,  in  his  exhausted  state,  would  have  been  equally 
distressing  and  dangerous  ?  It  cannot  be  for  a  moment  sup- 
posed. Nothing  like  it  is  hinted.  Ananias  simply  directs 
him  to  "  stand  up  and  be  baptized."  "  And  immediately 
there  fell  from  his  eyes  as  it  had  been  scales  ;  and  he  received 
sight  forthwith,  and  arose,  and  was  baptized.''  It  was  after 
the  baptism,  as  we  learn,  that  he  received  sustenance  and  w*as 
"  strengthened."  It  would  really  seem  as  if  no  impartial 
reader  could  receive  any  other  impression  from  this  account, 
than  that  Paul  stood  up,  in  the  apartment,  in  which  Ananias 
found  him,  and  there  received  baptism  by  pouring  or  sprink- 
ling on  him  a  small  quantity  of  that  water  which  is  applied 
in  this  ordinance  as  a  symbol  of  spiritual  cleansing. 

Again,  the  baptism  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch,  when  duly 
considered,  will  be  found  equally  remote  from  affording  the 
smallest  countenance  to  that  conclusion  in  favour  of  immer- 
sion, which  has  been  so  often  and  so  confidently  drawn 
from  it. 

The  eunuch  v/as  travelling  on  the  public  highway,  when 
Philip  met  him.  They  had  been  reading  and  commenting 
on  a  prophecy  of  the  Messiah,  in  which  mention  is  made 
of  his  sprinkling  many  nations.  When  they  came  to  a 
rivulet  of  water,  the  eunuch  said,  '  See,  here  is  water,  what 
doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  V  Philip  had,  no  doubt,  been 
explaining  to  him  the  nature,  design,  and  obligation  of  this 
ordinance,  or  he  would  not  have  been  likely  to  ask  such  a 
question.     The  servant  of  God  consented  to  baptize  him; 


76  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

and,  as  they  were  travelling,  and  probably  destitute  of  any 
convenient  vessel  for  dipping  up  a  portion  of  water  from  the 
stream,  they  both  went  clown  to  the  water,  probably  no  fur- 
ther than  to  its  margin;  far  enough  to  take  up  a  small  portion 
of  it  to  sprinkle  or  pour  on  the  eunuch.     The  narrative,  in 
the   original,  ascertains  nothing  more  than  that  they  both 
w^ent  to  and  from  the  water.     In  our  translation,  indeed,  it  is 
said,  they  both  went  down  into  the  water,  and  came  up  out 
of  tlie  water.     But,  when  we  look  into  the  original  text,  we 
find  the  strict  meaning  of  the  terms  employed,  to  be,  that 
Philip  and  the  eunuch  went  down  the  banks  to  the  water, 
and  coming  from  the  water,  reascended  the  banks  again,  to 
the  place  where  the  chariot  in  which  they  rode  had  been  left. 
The  same  form  of  expression  is  used  as  in  the  case  of  Peter 
and  the  tribute  money,  (Matt.  xvii.  27.)     "  Go  thou  to  the 
sea,  and  cast  an  hook,"  &c.     Here  we  cannot  suppose  that 
our  Lord  meant  to  command  Peter  to  plunge  into  the  sea,  but 
only  to  go  to  the  water's  edge,  and  cast  in  a  hook.     The 
same  form  of  expression  is   also  employed  in  many  other 
passages  of  the  New  Testament,  where  immersion  is  wholly 
out  of  the  question:   As  in  John,  ii.  12,  where  it  is  said, 
Jesus  M'ent  down  to  Capernaum;  Acts  vii.  15,  Jacob  went 
down  into  Egypt;  Acts  xviii.  22,  He  went  down  to  Antioch, 
&c.     Surely,  no  one  will  dream  of  immersion  in  any  of  these 
cases.     There  is  nothing,  then,  in  any  of  the  language  here 
used,  which  necessarily,  or  even  probably,  imphes  immersion. 
At  any  rate,  the  terms   employed   apply  equally  to   both. 
There  is  the  same  evidence  that  Philip  was  plunged,  as  that 
the  eunuch  was.     It  is  said  they  both  went  to  the  water. 
Nor  can  we  consider  it  as  at  all  likely  that,  in  the  circum- 
stances in  which  they  were  placed  as  travellers,  they  were 
either  of  them  immersed.     It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  all  the 
confidence  which  our  Baptist  brethren  have  so  often  expressed, 
that  the  case  of  the  Ethiopian  eunuch  is  a  certain  example  of 
immersion,  must  be  regarded  as  presenting  no  solid  evidence 
in  their  favour,  and  as  really  amounting  to  a  gross  imposition 
on  popular  credulity. 

The  next  remarkable  instance  of  baptism  recorded  in  the 
New  Testament,  is  that  of  Cornelius  and  his  household. 
Cornelius,  a  "  devout  man,  who  feared  God,"  was  directed, 
in  a  vision,  to  send  for  Peter,  the  apostle,  who  should  impart 
to  him  the  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ.  Peter,  on 
his  arrival,  having  ascertaiued,  wherfore  Cornelius  had  sent 
for  him,  unfolded  to  him,  and  to  all  who  were  convened  in 
his   house,    the  way  of  salvation.     "  While   he  was    yet 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  77 

speaking,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  upon  all  ot  them  which  heard 
the  word,  then  answered  Peter,  Can  any  man  forbid  water, 
that  these  should  not  be  baptized,  who  have  received  the 
Holy  Ghost  as  weU  as  we  ?  And  he  commanded  them  to  be 
baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord." 

In  this  passage,  there  is  nothing  that  has  the  remotest  ap- 
pearance of  immersion.  No  hint  is  given  of  the  candidates 
for  baptism  being  led  out  of  the  house,  to  a  river  or  pool, 
for  the  purpose  of  being  dipped.  The  language  of  Peter  has 
an  entirely  different  aspect.  "  Caii  any  ma7i  forbid  water, 
that  these  should  not  be  baptized?"  That  is  "  Can  any  man 
forbid  water  being  brought  in  a  convenient  vessel,  to  be  ap- 
plied by  pouring  or  sprinkling  ?"  He  had  just  spoken  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  being  poured  out  upon  them  ;  and  what 
could  be  more  natural  than  that  he  should  apply  water,  the 
emblem  of  spiritual  cleansing,  in  conformity  with  the  same 
striking  iigure  ?  "  They  were  not  dipped  into  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  but  the  Holy  Ghost  was  poured  out  upon  them. 
They  were  not  applied  to  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  applied  to  them.  He  "fell  upon  them  ;"  and  the 
introduction  of  water,  to  be  applied  in  a  corresponding  man- 
ner, was  immediately  authorized. 

The  baptism  of  the  jaUer  and  his  household,  at  Philippi, 
still  more  decisively  leads  to  the  same  conclusion.  If  we 
examine  the  circumstances  which  attended  this  baptism, 
they  will  be  found  to  preclude,  not  only  the  probability,  but 
I  may  say  with  confidence,  the  possibility  of  its  having  been 
performed  by  immersion.  Paul  and  Silas  were  closely  con- 
fined in  prison  when  this  solemn  service  was  performed. 
While  they  were  engaged  in  "  praying  and  singing  praises 
to  God,"  a  great  earthquake  shook  the  prison  to  its  founda- 
tion, and  the  bonds  of  the  prisoners  were  immediately  un- 
loosed. The  jailer,  awaking  from  his  sleep,  called  for  a 
light,  and  sprang  in,  and  came  trembling,  and  fell  down  be- 
fore Paul  and  Silas,  and  said,  "  Sirs,  what  must  I  do  to  be 
saved  ?  And  they  said  Believe  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
and  thou  shalt  be  saved,  and  thy  house.  And  they  spake 
unto  him  the  word,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  house.  And 
he  took  them  the  same  hour  of  the  night,  and  washed  their 
stripes,  and  was  baptized,  he  and  all  his,  straightway." 
This  whole  transaction,  you  will  observe,  occurred  a  httle 
after  midnight,  and  in  a  prison,  that  is,  in  the  outer  prison, 
for  the  jailor  seems  to  have  brought  them  out  of  the  dungeon, 
or  "  inner  prison,"  into  some  other  apartment  of  the  edifice. 
For  it  was  not  until  next  morning,  some  hours  after  the  bap- 
23  8 


78  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

tism,  that  the  magistrates  gave  the  keeper  permission  to  let 
them  out  of  the  prison.  He  and  his  family  were  evidently 
baptized  "  the  same  hour  of  the  night,"  that  is,  between 
midnight  (when  we  are  expressly  told  the  earthquake  occur- 
red,) and  day ;  and  while  yet  in  the  place  of  confinement. 
Now,  I  ask,  how  can  we  imagine  it  possible  that  the  jailer 
and  his  family  should  be  baptized  by  immersion,  in  the  cir- 
cumstances in  which  they  were  placed  ?  We  cannot  sup- 
pose that  there  was  a  river,  or  a  pool  of  water,  or  a  baptis- 
tery within  the  walls  of  the  prison,  adapted  to  meet  an  occa- 
sion as  unexpected  as  any  thing  could  be,  which  had  never 
occurred  there  before,  and  was  never  likely  to  occur,  in  like 
circumstances  again.  He  who  can  believe  this,  must  be 
ready  to  adopt  any  supposition,  however  extravagant,  for  the 
sake  of  an  hypothesis.  As  little  can  we  imagine  that  Paul 
and  Silas  would  be  dishonest  enough  to  steal  out  of  the  prison 
by  night,  and  accompany  the  jailer  and  his  family  to  the 
river  which  runs  near  the  city  of  Philippi,  for  the  purpose  of 
plunging  them  ;  especially  as  we  know,  on  the  one  hand  how 
backward  they  were,  the  next  morning  to  quit  the  prison, 
unless  brought  out  by  the  magistrates  who  had  illegally  im- 
prisoned them :  and  on  the  other  hand  how  much  terrified 
the  jailer  was  at  the  thought  of  the  prisoners  escaping  from 
confinement,  and  of  his  being  responsible  even  with  his  own 
Hfe,  for  their  safe  keeping. 

In  like  manner,  we  might  go  over  all  the  other  cases  of 
baptism  recorded  in  the  New  Testament,  and  show  that,  in 
no  one  case  have  we  any  evidence  that  the  ordinance  was 
administered  by  immersion.  Now,  as  the  disciples  of  Christ 
baptized  such  great  multitudes — even  more,  at  one  period 
than  John  ;  can  we  imagine,  if  the  constant,  or  even  the 
common  mode  of  baptising  had  been  by  plunging  the  whole 
body  under  water,  and  especially,  if  they  had  laid  great 
stress  on  adherence  to  this  mode ;  can  we  imagine,  I  say, 
that  amidst  so  many  cases  of  baptism,  some  term  of  expres- 
sion, some  incidental  circumstance  would  not  have  occurred, 
from  which  the  fact  of  immersion  might  have  been  clearly 
manifested,  or  irresistibly  inferred?  One  thing  is  certain. 
The  inspired  writers  of  the  New  Testament  could  not  pos- 
sibly have  regarded  immersion  in  baptism  in  the  same  hght 
in  which  it  is  regarded  by  our  Baptist  brethren.  The  latter, 
consider  their  mode  of  applying  water,  as  essential  to  the 
ordinance.  They  dwell  upon  it  with  unceasing  fondness, 
introduce  it  into  every  discussion  ;  and  loose  no  opportunity 
©f  recommending  and  urging  it  as  that,  without  which  an 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  *  79 

alleged  baptism  is  a  nullity  ;  nay,  an  offence  to  the  Head  of 
the  Church.  While  the  former,  though  speaking,  directly  or 
indirectly  on  the  subject,  in  almost  every  page  of  the  New 
Testament,  and  under  a  great  variety  of  aspects,  have  not 
stated  a  single  fact,  or  employed  a  single  term,  which  evin- 
ces that  they  either  preferred  or  practised  immersion  in  any 
case.  They  have  stated,  indeed,  some  facts  which  can 
scarcely,  by  possibility,  be  reconciled  with  immersion  ;  but 
in  no  instance  have  they  made  a  representation  which  is  not 
entirely  reconcileable  with  the  practice  of  perfusion  or  sprink- 
ling. On  the  supposition  that  the  doctrine  of  our  Baptist 
brethren  is  true,  this  is  a  most  unaccountable  fact  ?  What ! 
not  one  evangelist  or  aposde,  though  taught  by  the  Spirit  of 
God  what  to  say — kind  enough,  or  wise  enough,  to  put 
this  matter  beyond  a  doubt  ?  The  unavoidable  inference  is. 
that  the  inspired  writers  did  not  deem  the  mode  of  applying 
water  in  baptism,  an  essential  matter  ;  and  did  not  think  it 
necessary  to  state  it  precisely ;  and,  of  course,  that  they  dif- 
fered entirely  from  our  Baptist  brethren. 

4.  Even  if  it  could  be  proved  (which  we  know  it  cannot 
be,)  that  the  mode  of  baptism  adopted  in  the  time  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles,  was  that  of  immersion  ;  yet  if  that  method 
of  administering  the  ordinance  were  not  significant  of  some 
truth,  which  the  other  modes  cannot  represent,  we  are  plain- 
ly at  liberty  to  regard  it  as  a  non-essential  circumstance,  from 
which  we  may  depart  when  expediency  requires  it,  as  we 
are  all  wont  to  do  in  other  cases,  even  with  respect  to  posi- 
tive institutions.  For  example,  the  Lord's  Supper  was,  no 
doubt,  originally  instituted  with  unleavened  bread  ;  and  this 
was,  probably,  at  first  the  common  custom.  But  as  being 
leavened  or  unleavened  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  design 
and  scope  of  the  ordinance ;  as  bread  of  either  kind  is  equal- 
ly emblematical  of  that  spiritual  nourishment  which  it  is  in- 
tended to  represent;  most  professing  Christians,  and  our 
Baptist  brethren  among  the  rest,  feel  authorised  io  celebrate 
the  Lord's  Supper  with  leavened  bread  without  the  smallest 
scruple. 

Again ;  the  manner  of  sitting  at  the  Lord's  Supper,  was, 
in  conformity  with  the  then  prevailing  posture  at  feasts,  to 
recline  on  the  elbow  on  a  couch.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  this  was  the  uniform  posture  at  th  econvivial  table,  at 
that  time  ;  and  in  the  narratives  of  the  evangelists,  we  have 
abundant  evidence  that  the  same  posture  was  adopted  by 
our  blessed  Lord  in  the  institution  of  the  sacramental  Sup- 
per.    But  as  it  was  only  a  circumstance  connected  with  the 


80  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

habits  of  those  days,  we  do  not  feel  bound;  and  our  Baptist 
brethren  among  others,  do  not  feel  bound,  in  administering 
this  ordinance,  to  conform  to  the  original  mode.  We  con- 
sider the  sacrament  as  completely  and  validly  dispensed,  if 
bread  and  wine  be  reverently  received,  in  commemoration 
of  the  Saviour's  death,  with  any  posture  of  the  body.  Nay, 
the  example  of  our  Saviour  himself,  plainly  shows  that, 
under  a  change  of  circumstances  non-essential  modes,  orig- 
inally used,  may  be  dispensed  with.  The  prescribed  ritual 
of  the  Passover  required  that  the  lamb  should  be  eaten  with 
shoes  on  the  feet,  and  with  staves  in  the  hand ;  but  this  cus- 
tom was  not  followed  by  Him  or  his  disciples,  and  perhaps, 
never  was  observed  after  the  entrance  into  Canaan.  But 
was  the  Passover  rendered  either  less  perfect,  or  less  useful, 
for  all  practical  purposes,  by  this  omission  ?  Surely  we  need 
not  wait  for  an  answer. 

Now,  unless  it  can  be  proved,  that  plunging  the  body  into 
water,  and  lifting  it  out  again,  was  designed  to  be  emblemati- 
cal of  something  which  cannot  be  otherwise  expressed,  we 
have  full  liberty  given  us  by  the  example  of  our  Lord  him- 
self, to  consider  this  mode  as  an  unimportant  circumstance. 
If  the  cleansing  element  of  water  be  applied,  in  any  reveren- 
tial mode,  to  the  human  body,  the  whole  symbolical  ex- 
pression of  the  ordinance  is  attained,  provided  convenience 
and  decorum  be  duly  consulted.  If  the  cleansing  or  purify- 
ing quality  of  the  element  used,  be  the  idea  intended  to  be 
set  forth  in  the  emblem  ;  and  if  the  greater  part,  as  we  have 
seen,  of  the  typical  purifications  prescribed  under  the  cere- 
monial economy  were  effected  by  sprinkling ;  it  is  plain  that 
the  emblem  is  complete,  however  the  cleansing  element  may 
be  applied. 


DISCOURSE  IV. 

THE   MODE    OF    ADMINISTERING   BAPTISM. 

Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be  baptized  7 
Acts,  X.  47. 

5.  The  difficulties  attending  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism by  immersion,  in  many  cases,  ought  to  satisfy  us  that 
this  mode  of  administering  the  ordinance  cannot  be  the  only 
valid  mode,  and  is  not  the  most  proper  and  edifying  mode. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  81 

It  is  perfectly  evident,  to  every  reflecting  mind,  that  the 
obstacles  which  may  be  conceived,  and  which  very  fre- 
quently, in  fact,  occur,  to  render  baptism  by  immersion  difii- 
cult,  if  not  impracticable,  are  very  many,  and  very  serious. 
It  will  be  sufficient  to  hint  at  a  few  of  the  more  familiar  and 
obvious.  It  is  well  known  that  some  very  large  districts  of 
country,  in  various,  parts  of  our  globe,  are  so  parched  and 
dry,  and  streams  of  water  so  rare,  or  rather,  in  many  cases, 
so  unknown,  for  many  miles  together,  that  the  means  of 
immersing  a  human  body,  in  any  natural  stream  or  pool  of 
water,  cannot  possibly  be  obtained  but  with  great  trouble 
and  expense ;  a  trouble  and  expense  impracticable  to  a  large 
portion  of  every  community  inhabiting  those  countries. 
There  are  other  parts  of  our  globe,  near  the  polar  regions, 
where,  during  the  major  portion  of  every  year,  the  constant 
reign  of  severe  frost,  seals  up  every  natural  stream  and  foun- 
tain, and  renders  the  immersion  of  a  human  body  not  merely 
difficult,  but  impracticable,  without  great  labour  and  cost. 
Nor  is  this  all ;  even  in  the  temperate  and  well  watered  lati- 
tudes, there  are  seasons  of  the  year,  often  of  four  or  five 
months  continuance,  when  baptism  by  immersion  is  generally 
dangerous,  and,  in  many  cases,  highly  so,  to  the  health,  and 
even  the  lives  of  both  those  who  administer,  and  those  who 
receive  the  ordinance.*     And,  finally,  at  all  seasons,  persons 

*  The  Rev.  Dr.  Austin,  in  his  answer  to  Mr.  Merill,  speaks  thus — 
"  In  besieged  cities,  where  there  are  thousands,  and  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  people ;  in  sandy  deserts  like  those  of  Africa,  Arabia,  and 
Palestine;  in  the  northern  regions,  where  the  streams,  if  there  be  any, 
are  shut  up  with  impenetrable  ice :  and  in  severe  and  extensive 
droughts,  like  that  which  took  place  in  the  time  of  Ahab ;  sufficiency 
of  water  for  animal  subsistence  is  scarcely  to  be  procured,  Now, 
suppose  God  should,  according  to  his  predictions,  pour  out  plentiful 
effusions  of  his  spirit,  so  that  all  the  inhabitants  of  one  of  these  regions 
or  cities,  should  be  born  in  a  day.  Upon  the  Baptist  hypothesis,  there 
is  an  absolute  impossibility  that  they  should  be  baptized,  while  there 
is  this  scarcity  of  water ;  and  this  may  last  as  long  as  they  live,"  p.  41. 

So  also,  Mr.  Walker,  in  his  "  Doctrine  of  Baptisms,"  (chapter  10) 
speaks  of  a  Jew,  who,  while  travelling  with  Christians,  in  the  time  of 
Marcus  Aurelius  Antoninus,  about  sixty  or  seventy  years  after  the 
apostles,  was  converted,  fell  sick,  and  desired  baptism.  Not  having 
water,  they  sprinkled  him  thrice  with  sand,  in  the  name  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  recovered,  and  his  case  was  repor- 
ted  to  the  Bishop,  (or  pastor,  there  being  no  prelates  then)  who  decided 
that  the  man  was  baptized,  (si  modo  aqua  denuo  perfunderatur)  if  he 
only  had  water  poured  on  him  again.  This  record  shows,  not  merely 
that  the  *'  difficulties"  referred  to,  are  far  from  being  ideal;  but  also 
that  when  the  defect  of  the  baptism  by  sand  was  attempted  to  be  sup- 
plied it  was  not  by  any  sort  of  immersion,  but  only  by  the  pouring  on 
of  water 

23*  8* 


82  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

labouring  under  disease,  can  never  be  baptized  in  this  mode, 
with  safety,  at  all :  and,  of  course,  must  be  deprived  entirely 
of  the  privilege  of  receiving  this  seal  of  the  Christian  cove 
nant,  so  reasonable  in  itself,  and  so  gratifying  to  the  pious 
mind.  It  is  also  certain,  that  Baptist  ministers  who  are  aged 
and  infirm,  can  never  safely  officiate  in  baptizing  in  any 
case  ;  and  when  they  are  men  remarkably  frail  and  feeble  in 
body,  they  can  never  undertake,  without  manifest  danger,  to 
baptize  individuals  of  large  stature,  or  more  than  common 
corpulency.  To  all  which  may  be  added,  that  the  public 
baptism  of  females  with  all  the  delicacy  and  care  which  can 
possibly  be  employed,  is  certainly,  as  thousands  attest,  a 
practice  little  in  keeping  with  those  religious  feelings  and 
impressions  with  which  it  is  desirable  that  every  Christian 
solemnity  should  be  attended. 

Now,  contrast  all  these  difficulties,  which,  surely,  form  a 
mass  of  no  small  magnitude  with  the  entire  absence  of  every 
difficulty  of  baptizing  by  sprinkling  or  affiision.  According 
to  our  plan,  which,  we  have  no  doubt,  is  by  far  the  most 
scriptural  and  edifying,  baptism  may  be  performed  with 
equal  ease  and  convenience  in  all  countries ;  at  all  seasons 
of  the  year ;  in  all  situations  of  health  or  sickness  ;  with 
equal  safety  by  all  ministers,  whether  young  or  old,  athletic 
or  feeble ;  and  in  all  circumstances  that  can  well  be  concei- 
ved. How  admirably  does  this  accord  with  the  Gospel 
economy,  which  is  not  intended  to  be  confined  to  any  one 
people,  or  to  any  particular  climate ;  but  is  equally  adapted, 
in  all  its  principles,  and  in  all  its  rites  to  every  "  kindred, 
and  people,  and  nation,  and  tongue  !" 

Accordingly,  it  is  a  notorious  fact,  that,  in  consideration 
of  the  difficulties  which  have  been  mentioned  as  attending 
immersion,  a  large  body  of  Baptists,  in  Holland,  I  mean 
the  Mennonites,  who  were  once  warm  and  uncompromising 
contenders  for  this  mode  of  administering  baptism,  at  length 
gave  it  up,  and,  while  they  still  baptize  none  but  adults, 
have  been,  for  more  than  a  hundred  years,  in  the  practice  of 
pouring  water  on  the  head  of  the  candidate,  through  the 
hand  of  the  administrator.  They  found  that  when  candi- 
dates for  baptism  were  lying  on  sick  beds ;  or  confined  in 
prison ;  or  in  a  state  of  peculiarly  delicate  health  ;  or  in  va- 
rious other  unusual  situations,  which  may  be  easily  ima- 
gined ;  there  was  so  much  difficulty,  not  to  say,  in  some 
cases,  a  total  impossibility  in  baptizing  by  plunging ;  that 
they  deliberately,  as  a  denomination,  after  the  death  of  their 
first  leader,  agreed  to  lay  aside,  as  I  said,  the  practice  of  im- 
mersion, an^  substituted  the  plan  of  affusion. 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  83 

There  is  one  difficulty  more,  in  reference  to  the  mode  of 
baptism  by  immersion,  of  which  it  is  not  easy  to  speak,  on 
an  occasion  like  the  present,  without  appearing  to  intend 
ridicule  of  an  ordinance  so  solemn  and  important.  Fidelity 
to  the  subject,  however,  demands  that  I  speak  of  it;  and  I 
trust  no  one  will  suspect  me  of  a  design  to  make  any  other 
than  a  perfectly  grave  and  fair  use  of  the  matter  to  which  I 
refer.  The  circumstance  to  which  I  allude  is,  that  in  the 
third,  fourth,  and  immediately  following  centuries — in  the 
days  of  Cyprian,  Cyril,  Athanasius,  and  Chrysostom — when, 
as  all  agree,  the  mode  of  baptizing  by  immersion  was  the 
most  prevalent  method  ;  there  is  no  historical  fact  more  per- 
fectly established,  than  that,  whenever  baptism  was  thus  ad- 
ministered, the  candidate,  whether  infant  or  adult,  male  or 
female,  was  entirely  divested  of  all  clothing:  not  merely  of 
outer  garments,  but,  I  repeat,  of  all  clothing.  No  exception 
was  allowed  in  any  case,  even  when  the  most  timid  and  del- 
icate female  importunately  desired  it.  This  fact  is  estab- 
lished, not  only  by  the  most  direct  and  unequivocal  state- 
ments, and  that  by  a  number  of  Avriters,  but  also  by  the  nar- 
ration of  a  number  of  curious  particulars  connected  with  this 
practice.*  Among  the  rest  we  are  told  of  scenes  of  indeco- 
rum exhibited  in  the  baptisteries  of  those  days,  which  con- 
vinced the  friends  of  religion  that  the  practice  ought  to  be 
discontinued,  and  it  was  finally  laid  aside.  Perhaps  it  will 
be  asked,  whether  this  fact  in  the  history  of  Christian  bap- 
tism is  adverted  to  for  the  purpose  of  reflecting  odium,  in  a 
sinister  and  indirect  manner,  on  the  practice  of  immersion  ? 
I  answer,  by  no  means ;  but  simply  for  the  purpose  of  show- 
ing that  in  tracing  the  history  of  baptism  by  immersion,  we 
have  the  very  same  evidence  in  favour  of  immersing  divested 
of  all  clothing,  that  we  have  for  immersing  at  all :  that,  so 
far  as  the  history  of  the  church,  subsequent  to  the  apostolic 
age,  informs  us,  these  two  practices  must  stand  or  fall  toge- 
ther ;t  and  that  an  appendage  to  baptism  so  revolting,  so  im- 

*  The  zealous  Baptist  Robert  Robinson,  bears,  on  this  subject,  the 
following  testimony :  "  The  primitive  Christians  baptized  naked. 
Nothing  is  easier  than  to  give  proof  of  this  by  quotations  from  the  au- 
thentic  writings  of  the  men  who  administered  baptism,  and  who  cer- 
tainly  knew  in  what  way  they  themselves  performed  it.  There  is  no 
ancient  historical  fact  better  authenticated  than  this.  The  evidence 
does  not  go  on  the  evidence  of  the  single  word,  naked ;  for  then  a 
reader  might  suspect  allegory  ;  but  on  facts  reported,  and  many  reasons 
assigned  for  the  practice."  History  of  Baptism,  p.  85.  He  then 
quotes  several  examples  dated  in  the  fourth  century. 

+  The  learned  Wall  speaks  on  the  subject  thus :  "  The  ancient 
Christians,  when  they  were  baptized  by  immersion,  were  all  baptized 


84  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

moral,  and  so  entirely  inadmissible,  plainly  shows  that  those 
who  practised  it  must  have  been  chargeable  with  a  supersti- 
tious and  extravagant  adoption  of  a  mere  form,  which,  from 
its  character,  we  are  compelled  to  believe  was  a  human  in- 
vention, and  took  its  rise  in  the  rudeness  of  growing  supersti- 
tion, perhaps  from  a  source  still  more  impure  and  criminal. 

Besides,  if  the  principle  for  which  our  Baptist  brethren 
contend,  be  correct ;  if  the  immersion  of  the  whole  body  be 
essential  to  Christian  Baptism,  and  if  the  thing  signified  be 
the  cleansing  and  purifying  of  the  individual  by  an  ablution 
which  must  of  necessity  extend  to  the  whole  person ;  it 
would  really  seem  that  performing  this  ceremony,  divested 
of  all  clothing,  is  essential  to  its  emblematic  meaning.  Who 
ever  thought  of  covering  the  hands  with  gloves  when  they 
were  about  to  be  washed ;  or  expected  really  to  cleanse  them 
through  such  a  covering  ?  No  wonder,  then,  when  the 
principle  began  to  find  a  place  in  the  church,  that  the  sub- 
mersion of  every  part  of  the  body  in  water,  that  the  literal 
bathing  of  the  whole  person  was  essential  both  to  the  expres- 
siveness and  the  validity  of  the  emblematical  transaction ;  no 
wonder,  I  say,  that  the  obvious  consequence  should  soon  be 
admitted,  that  the  whole  body  ought  to  be  uncovered,  as 
never  fails  to  be  the  case,  with  any  member  of  the  body 
which  may  wish  to  be  successfully  cleansed  by  bathing. 
And  we  have  no  hesitation  in  saying,  that,  if  we  fully  adop- 
ted the  general  principle  of  our  Baptist  brethren  in  relation 
to  this  matter,  we  should  no  more  think  of  subjecting  the 
body  to  that  process  which  must,  in  order  to  its  validity,  be 
strictly  emblematical  of  a  complete  spiritual  bathing,  while 
covered  with  clothes,  than  we  should  thmk,  in  common  life, 
of  washing  the  hands  or  the  feet,  while  carefully  covered 
with  the  articles  of  dress  with  which  they  are  commonly 
clothed.  Whereas,  if  the  principle  of  Poedobaptists  on  this 
subject  be  adopted,  then  the  solemn  application  of  water  to 
that  part  of  the  body  which  is  an  epitome  of  the  whole  per- 
son, and  which  is  always,  as  a  matter  of  course,  uncovered, 
is  amply  sufficient  to  answer  every  purpose  both  of  emblem 
and  of  benefit. 

naked ;  whether  they  were  men,  women,  or  children.  The  proofs  of 
this,  I  shall  omit,  because  it  is  a  clear  case.  The  English  Antipoedo- 
baptists  need  not  have  made  so  great  an  outcry  against  Mr.  Baxter  for 
bis  saying  that  they  baptized  naked;  for  if  they  had,  it  would  have 
been  no  more  than  the  primitive  Christians  did.  They  thought  it  bet- 
ter represented  the  putting  off  the  old  man,  and  also  the  nakedness  of 
Christ  on  the  cross.  Moreover,  as  baptism  is  a  washing,  they  judged 
it  should  be  the  washing  of  the  body,  not  of  the  clothes  "  Wall,  Chap- 
ter  XV.  Part  II 


INFANT   BAPTISM  85 

Besides,  let  me  appeal  to  our  Baptist  brethren,  by  asking, 
if  they  verily  believe  that  the  primitive  and  apostolic  mode  of 
administering  baptism  was  by  immersion,  and  that  this  im- 
mersion was  performed  in  a  state  of  entire  nakedness ;  how 
can  they  dare,  upon  their  principles,  to  depart,  as  to  one 
iota  from  that  mode  ?  Let  them  not  say,  that  they  carefully 
retain  the  substance,  the  essential  characters  of  the  plan  of 
immersion.  Very  true.  This  is  our  plea  ;  and  it  accords 
very  well  with  what  we  consider  as  the  correct  system  ;  but 
in  the  mouth  of  a  Baptist  it  is  altogether  inadmissible.  The 
institute  in  question  is  a  "  positive"  one  ;  and,  according  to 
him,  we  must  not  depart  one  jot  or  tittle  from  the  original 
plan. 

These  considerations,  strike  me  as  affording  decisive 
evidence,  that  a  mode  of  baptism  attended  with  so  many 
real  and  formidable  difficulties,  cannot  be  of  divine  appoint- 
ment ;  at  any  rate  that  it  cannot  be  univei  sally  binding  on 
the  church  of  God ;  and  that  laying  so  much  stress  upon 
the  completeness  of  the  submersion,  is  servility  and  supersti- 
tion. We  may  say  of  this  ordinance,  as  our  Lord  said  of 
the  Sabbath.  Baptism  ivas  made  for  man,  and  not  man 
for  baptism.  Where  a  particular  mode  of  complying  with 
a  religious  observance  would  be,  in  many  cases,  "  a  yoke  of 
bondage,"  and  one,  too,  for  which  no  divine  warrant  could 
be  pleaded,  it  would  surely  argue  the  very  slavery  of  super- 
stition, to  enforce  that  mode  of  the  observance  as  essential  to 
a  regular  standing  in  the  visible  family  of  Christ. 

6.  As  a  further  objection  to  the  doctrine  of  our  Baptist 
brethren  in  relation  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  let  us  examine 
some  of  the  figurative  language  of  Scripture  ivhich  refers 
to  this  ordinance  ;  and  especially  certain  passages  on  which 
they  are  accustomed  to  place  their  greatest  reliance  for  the 
support  of  their  cause. 

Perhaps  no  passages  in  Scripture  have  been  more  fre- 
quently and  confidently  pressed  into  the  service  of  baptism 
by  immersion  than  those  that  are  found  in  Romans  vi.  3,  4, 
and  Colossians  ii.  12.  In  the  former  we  find  the  following: 
'*  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  Je- 
sus Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death?  Therefore  we 
are  buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ;  that  like  as 
Christ  was  raised  up  from  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Fa- 
ther, even  so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life."  Cor- 
responding with  this  in  Colossians  ii.  12,  the  following  pas- 
sage occurs  :  "  Buried  with  him  in  Baptism  ;  wherein  also 
ye  are  risen  with  him  through  the  faith  of  the  operation  of 
God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead." 


86  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

Now,  our  Baptist  brethren,  believing  and  insisting  that 
baptism  and  immersion  ought  to  be  considered,  in  aU  cases, 
as  synonymous  terms,  take  for  granted  that  the  expression, 
"Buried  with  him  in  baptism,"  is  intended  to  refer  to  the 
resemblance  between  the  interment  of  a  dead  body,  and  its 
subsequent  resurrection  from  beneath  the  surface  of  the  earth ; 
and  the  immersion  of  a  baptized  person  entirely  under  the 
water,  and  raising  him  up  again  from  beneath  the  surface  of 
the  fluid.  In  a  word,  our  Baptist  brethren  assure  us,  that 
the  design  of  the  apostle  in  these  passages  is  to  say,  that 
*'  the  baptized  person's  communion  with  Christ  in  his 
death  and  burial,  is  represented  by  his  being  laid  under  the 
water  ;  and  his  communion  with  him  in  his  resurrection,  by 
his  being  raised  out  of  it."  In  this  general  interpretation  of 
the  figure  many  Poedobaptists  have  agreed  ;  and  have  thus 
not  a  little  confirmed  the  confidence  of  anti-pcedobaptists  in 
their  cause.  I  am  persuaded,  however,  that  a  candid  exami- 
nation of  the  real  import  of  the  figurative  language  before  us, 
will  show  that  this  confidence  is  entirely  unfounded. 

The  Apostle,  in  the  preceding  part  of  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans,  had  shown  that  Christians  are  justified  by  faith  in 
the  righteousness  of  Christ.  He  proceeds  in  the  sixth 
chapter  to  obviate  the  objection,  that  this  doctrine  tends  to 
licentiousness.  "  What  shall  we  say,  then  ?  Shall  we  con- 
tinue in  sin  that  grace  may  abound  ?  God  forbid !"  He 
rejects  with  abhorrence  the  odious  thought.  "  How  shall  we 
that  are  dead  to  sin  live  any  longer  therein  ?"  He  then  ad- 
verts to  the  significance  of  baptism,  which  being  the  ordi- 
nance which  seals  our  introduction  into  the  family  of  Christ 
may  be  considered  as  exhibiting  both  the  first  principles  of 
Gospel  truth,  and  the  first  elements  of  christian  character. 
"  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death?"  He  then  in- 
fers, that  since  baptism  has  so  immediate  a  reference  to  the 
death  of  Christ,  it  must,  by  consequence,  be  connected  also 
with  his  resurrection ;  and  that,  as  in  the  former  view,  it 
teaches  the  regenerated  the  abandoning  of  the  old  life  of  sin ; 
so,  in  the  latter,  it  equally  teaches  them  the  pursuit  and  prog- 
ress of  the  new  life  of  righteousness.  "  Therefore  we  are 
buried  with  him  by  baptism  into  death  ;  that  like  as  Christ 
was  raised  up  fi-om  the  dead  by  the  glory  of  the  Father,  even 
so  we  also  should  walk  in  newness  of  life." 

The  obvious  design  of  the  apostle  is  to  illustrate  the  cha- 
racter and  obligations  of  believers,  from  the  circumstance, 
that  they  are,  in  a  certain  respect,  conformed  to  Christ's 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  87 

death;  that  as  he  died  for  sin,  so  they  are  dead,  or  are  under 
obligations  to  be  dead,  to  sin ;  that  is  they  are  holy,  or  are, 
by  their  profession,  obliged  to  be  holy.  "  So  many  of  us  as 
were  baptized  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his 
death."  And  this  is  explained  by  what  follows.  "  In  that 
Christ  died,  he  died  unto  sin  (or  on  account  of  sin)  once ; 
but  in  that  he  liveth,  he  liveth  unto  God.  Likewise  reckon 
ve  also  yourselves  to  be  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  (or  in  respect 
to  sin,)  but  alive  unto  God  through  Jesus  Christ."  This  is 
what  was  signified  by  baptism.  And  so  believers  were  bap- 
tized into  Chrisfs  death :  not  that  baptism  was  a  symbol  of 
death,  or  the  state  of  the  dead  ;  for  water,  or  washing  in  wa- 
ter, never  was  a  symbol  of  this.  But  water,  used  in  cere- 
monial, whether  by  washing  or  sprinkling,  and  afterwards  in 
Christian  baptism,  always  signified  the  fact,  or  the  acknow- 
ledged necessity  of  purification.  Now  being  dead  or  in  a 
state  of  death  to  sin,  is  the  same  thing  as  to  be  spiritually 
purified,  or  made  holy.  And  this  is  the  very  thing  that  bap- 
tism, coming  in  the  place  of  ablutions  under  the  former 
economy,  is  exactly  adapted  to  signify.  Or,  to  say  all  in  a 
word,  water  used  in  baptism  is  a  sign  of  that  moral  purifica- 
tion of  believers,  which  the  Apostle  means  to  express  by 
their  being  crucified,  dead,  and  conformed  to  Christ's  death. 
Their  being  dead  in  conformity  with  Christ,  is  the  expres- 
sion which  contains  the  metaphor.  And  baptism,  as  an  ap- 
pointed token  or  symbol,  denotes  what  is  signified  by  the 
metaphor,  not  the  metaphor  itself.*  The  sum  of  the  apos- 
tle's illustration,  then,  so  far  as  the  point  before  us  is  con- 
cerned, is  simply  this — That  in  baptism,  as  a  rite  emblemati- 
cal of  moral  purification,  Christians  profess  to  be  baptized 
into  the  death  of  Christ,  as  well  as,  into  (or  into  the  hope 
of )  his  resurrection;  that  they  are  dead  a.nd  buried  in  re- 
spect to  sin,  that  is,  in  a  moral  and  spiritual  sense  ;  so  that 
every  Christian  can  say,  with  P«wZ— -"I  am  crucified  with 
Christ;  I  have  been  made  conformable  to  his  death;  being 
dead  indeed  to  sin,  and  alive  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ." 

But  besides  all  this,  which  is  sufficient  of  itself  to  show 
how  little  reliance  is  to  be  placed  on  the  gloss  of  this  passage 
adopted  by  our  Baptist  brethren — the  burial  of  Christ  was 

*  See  Dr.  Woods'  Lectures  on  Infant  Baptism,  p.  188,  189.  See 
this  interpretation  of  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  and  the  corresponding-  passage  in 
Colossians  ii.  12,  well  illustrated  in  the  Essay  on  Baptism,  by  Greville 
JSioing,  D.  D.  of  Glasgow,  and  also  in  a  Dissertation  on  Infant  Bap- 
tism,  by  Ralph  Wardlaw,  D.  D.  of  Glasgow ;  and  still  more  recently 
by  Professor  Stuart,  in  the  Biblical  Repository,  p.  327.  332. 


88  INFANT   BAPTISM. 

by  no  means  such  as  the  friends  of  this  exposition  commonly 
suppose.  The  body  of  our  Saviour  was  never  buried  in  the 
manner  in  which  we  are  accustomed  to  inter  human  corpses, 
that  is  by  letting  it  down  into  the  bosom  of  the  earth,  and 
covering  it  with  earth.  It  was  placed  in  a  tomb  hewn  out 
of  a  rock ;  not  a  tomb  sunk  in  the  earth,  but  hollowed  out  of 
a  rock,  above  ground,  and  containing  separate  cells  for  the 
reception  of  bodies,  "  as  the  manner  of  the  Jews  was  to 
bury."  Even  supposing,  then,  that  it  were  yielded  to  our 
Baptist  brethren  that  the  design  of  the  Apostle  is  to  teach  the 
mode  of  baptism,  by  comparing  it  to  the  burial  of  Christ,  it 
would  by  no  means  serve  their  purpose.  There  was  not  in 
fact  any  such  subterranean  immersion,  if  the  expression  may 
be  allowed,  as  they  imagine.  The  body  of  the  Saviour 
was  evidently  laid  in  a  stone  cell,  above  ground,  in  which  no 
earth  came  in  contact  with  it,  and  in  which,  when  the  stone 
which  closed  up  the  door  was  taken  away,  the  body  was 
distinctly  visible.  In  short,  the  burial  of  Christ  no  more  re- 
sembled the  modern  interment  of  a  dead  body  among  us, 
than  the  depositing  such  a  body,  for  a  time,  in  an  apartment 
in  the  basement  story  of  a  dwelling  house,  the  floor  of  which 
was  either  not  sunk  below  the  surface  of  the  earth  at  all,  or  if 
any,  not  more  than  a  few  inches ;  admitting  of  free  ingress 
and  egress  as  a  common  inhabited  room.  The  figure  in 
question,  then,  does  not  serve  the  turn  of  our  Baptist  breth- 
ren ;  thus  affording  another  proof,  that  nothing  more  was 
intended  by  its  use,  than  to  set  forth  that  by  being  baptized 
into  the  death  of  Christ,  we  profess  to  be  dead  and  buried 
in  respect  to  sin,  without  any  reference  whatever  to  the 
mode  in  which  either  the  burial  or  the  baptism  might  be 
performed. 

Accordingly  in  the  verse  immediately  preceding  that  be- 
fore commented  on,  in  the  second  Epistle  to  the  Colossians, 
the  following  passage  occurs,  evidently  intended  to  teach  the 
same  lesson :  "In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the 
circumcision  made  without  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of 
the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ."  And 
in  the  verse  immediately  following  that  in  which  the  burial 
of  Christ  is  alluded  to,  the  figure  of  circumcision  as  an  em- 
blem of  spiritual  cleansing,  is  still  pursued :  "  And  you 
being  dead  in  your  sins,  and  the  uncircumcision  of  your 
flesh,  hath  he  quickened  together  with  him,  having  forgiven 
you  all  trespasses."  Here  it  is  plain,  the  same  general  idea 
is  meant  to  be  conveyed,  as  in  the  reference  to  baptism, 
which  has  come  in  the  room  of  circumcision.     In  both  the 


INFANT   BAPTISM.  89 

putting  away  sin  ;  the  "  putting  off  the  sins  of  the  flesh,"  is 
emblematically  represented  and  sealed :  as  a  man  dead  and 
buried  is  cut  off  from  all  temporal  connections  and  indulgen- 
ces ;  so  the  baptized  man  is  really,  or  at  least  by  profession, 
dead  to  sin,  and  in  this  way  made  conformable  to  the  death 
of  Christ  in  its  great  design  and  efficiency,  which  are  to  pu- 
rify to  himself  a  peculiar  people,  dead  to  the  world,  dead  to 
carnal  ambition,  and  secluded  from  every  unhallowed  practice. 

Another  signal  example  of  the  figurative  language  of  Scrip- 
ture applied  to  baptism,  occurs  in  1  Corinthians,  x.  1,2. 
"  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  should  be  igno- 
rant, how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and  all 
passed  through  the  sea  ;  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Moses 
in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea."  Now,  when  we  turn  to  the 
narrative  given  by  Moses,  in  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  Ex- 
odus, we  find  that  the  Red  Sea,  through  which  the  Israelites 
passed,  was  divided  before  them  ;  that  the  waters  stood  up 
like  a  wall  on  each  side ;  and  that  they  passed  through  on 
DRY  GROUND.  We  are  also  informed,  that  the  cloud  by 
which  their  [ine  of  march  was  divinely  directed,  did  not  even 
fall  upon  them  in  the  form  of  a  shower,  much  less  submerge 
them ;  but  that  it  alternately  went  behind  them  and  before 
them ;  now  hanging  in  their  rear,  for  the  purpose  of  conceal- 
ing them  from  their  enemies ;  and  then  preceding  them  in 
their  course,  presenting  a  face  of  splendour  to  them,  and  a 
face  of  darkness  to  their  pursuers.  In  all  this,  there  was 
evidently  nothing  like  immersion.  The  utmost  that  could 
have  happened,  in  consistency  with  the  inspired  narrative, 
was  their  being  sprinkled  by  the  spray  of  the  sea,  or  by 
drops  from  the  miraculous  cloud,  when  it  passed  over  their 
heads. 

The  last  passage  of  the  class  under  consideration  to  which 
I  shall  advert,  is  that  found  in  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter,  iii. 
20,  21 :  "  The  long-suffering  of  God  waited  in  the  days  of 
Noah,  while  the  ark  was  preparing,  wherein  few,  that  is 
eight  souls,  were  saved  by  water.  The  like  figure  where- 
unto  even  baptism  doth  also  now  save  us  (not  the  putting  away 
of  the  filth  of  the  flesh,  but  the  answer  of  a  good  conscience 
toward  God)  by  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ."  The  prin- 
ciple implied  in  this  passage  is  plain ;  and  it  aflx>rds  not  the 
smallest  countenance  to  the  doctrine  of  our  Baptist  brethren. 
Evey  one  sees,  that  in  the  case  of  Noah  and  his  family,  and 
of  all  the  animals  preserved  with  them  in  the  ark,  there  was 
no  immersion  in  the  waters  of  the  flood.  Nay,  this  was  the 
very  evil  from  which  the  ark  preserved  them.  Of  course, 
24  9 


• 


90  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

whatever  else  the  passage  may  prove,  it  is  impossible  that 
it  should  be  legitimately  considered  as  favouring  baptism  by 
plunging  the  whole  body  under  water. 

7.  Further ;  that  immersion  is  not  necessary  in  baptism ; 
and  that  to  insist  upon  it,  as  indispensable,  is  superstition, 
appears  from  the  indisputable  fact,  that  both  the  significance 
and  the  effect  of  baptism  are  to  be  considered  as  depending, 
not  on  the  physical  influence  of  water,  or  upon  the  quantity 
of  it  employed,  but  on  its  symbolical  meaning,  and  on  the 
blessing  of  God  upon  its  application  as  a  symbol.  There 
has  always  been  a  tendency  in  human  nature  to  lay  more 
stress  than  the  Bible  warrants  upon  outward  forms :  and  to 
imagine  that  external  rites  have  a  virtue  inherent  in  them- 
selves, by  which  their  recipients  are  of  course  savingly  bene- 
fitted. It  is  generally  granted  by  enlightened  Protestants  to 
be  one  of  the  mischievous  errors  of  Popery,  that  baptism, 
and  the  other  appointed  rites  of  our  religion,  when  admin- 
istered by  authorized  hands,  have  an  inherent  efficacy ;  a 
sort  of  self-operating  power  on  those  to  whom  they  are  ad- 
ministered. This  we  consider  as  a  superstitious  and  dange- 
rous error.  We  believe  that  no  external  ordinance  has  any 
power  in  itself;  but  that  its  power  to  benefit  those  who  re- 
ceive it  depends  altogether  upon  the  influence  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  of  God,  making  it  effectual ;  and  that  this  influence 
may  accompany  or  follow  the  ordinance,  whatever  may  be 
the  outward  form  of  its  administration.  If,  indeed,  we  had 
reason  to  believe  that  the  benefit  of  baptism  was  caused  by 
the  physical  influence  of  water  on  any  or  every  part  of  the 
body,  and  depended  upon  that  influence :  if  the  least  intimation 
of  this  kind  were  given  us,  either  by  the  word  of  God,  or  the 
nature  of  the  case ;  it  would  be  wise  to  insist  on  a  rigorous 
adherence  to  that  form.  But  as  the  benefit  of  the  ordinance 
has  no  connection,  so  far  as  we  know,  with  the  operation  ot 
water  on  the  animal  frame ;  but  is  the  result,  solely,  of  a  di- 
vine blessing  on  a  prescribed  and  striking  emblem ;  and  as 
the  word  of  God  has  no  where  informed  us  of  the  precise 
mode  in  which  that  emblem  shall  be  applied — we  infer  that 
the  divine  blessing  may  attend  upon  any  mode  of  applying 
it.  The  language  of  our  blessed  Saviour  on  a  memorable 
occasion  is  full  of  instruction  on  this  subject.  In  order  to 
give  his  disciples  a  striking  lesson  both  of  humility  and  pu- 
rity, he  condescended,  on  a  certain  evening  when  they  were 
assembled  under  solemn  circumstances,  to  wash  their  feet. 
Simon  Peter,  when  his  Master  came  to  him,  like  too  many 
at  the  present  day,  misunderstanding  the  nature  and  signifi- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  91 

cance  of  the  symbolical  action,  at  first  strongly  objected,  and 
said,  "  Thou  shalt  never  wash  my  feet."  Jesus  answered, 
*'  If  I  wash  thee  not,  thou  hast  no  part  in  me."  To  which 
Peter,  in  the  fulness  of  his  fervent  zeal,  replied,  "Lord,  not  my 
feet  only,  but  also  my  hands  and  my  head."  Jesus,  however, 
meaning  to  convey  the  idea  that  the  whole  action  was  symboli- 
cal, and  that  the  application  of  water  to  any  part  of  the  body 
was  abundantly  sufficient,  rejoins  to  Peter.  "He  that  is  wash- 
ed, needeth  not  save  to  wash  his  feet,  but  is  clean  every  whit ; 
as  much  as  to  say,  "  It  is  not  the  physical  ablution,  but  the 
symbolical  meaning,  to  which  I  now  wish  to  call  your  atten- 
tion ;  and  for  this  purpose  the  application  of  water  to  the  feet 
only,  carries  with  it  all  the  fulness  of  meaning,  and  all  the 
richness  of  benefit,  that  could  have  resulted  from  the  most 
plentiful  application  of  it  to  the  whole  frame." 

8.  Another,  and  in  my  view,  conclusive  reason  for  believ- 
ing that  our  Baptist  brethren  are  in  error,  in  insisting  that  no 
baptism  unless  by  immersion  is  valid,  is  that  the  native  ten- 
dency of  this  doctrine  is  to  superstition  and  abuse.  The 
tendency  here  alleged  has  been  often  observed  and  lamented 
by  serious  people,  as  likely  to  be  connected  with  a  false  hope 
and  to  destroy  the  souls  of  multitudes.  Facts  in  support  of 
this  remark  have  fallen  under  my  own  painful  observation. 
I  have  known  many  Baptists  who  appeared  to  feel  as  if  there 
was  some  inherent  efficacy  in  being  "  buried  under  the  water," 
and  that  those  who  submitted  to  that  self-denying  rite,  were,  of 
course,  real  Christians.  They  have  evidently  appeared  to 
think  that  that  was  the  great  step  in  religion ;  and  that,  hav- 
ing taken  it,  all  was  secure.  Now,  I  contend,  that  this  is  the 
natural  tendency  of  the  Baptist  doctrine ;  that  their  laying 
so  much  stress  upon  "going  under  the  water,"  and  holding 
it  up,  with  unceasing  zeal,  to  the  popular  view,  as  the  great 
distinguishing,  and  indispensable  badge  of  discipleship,  is 
unavoidably,  adapted  to  betray  "  unwary  souls"  into  a  delu 
sive  confidence.  There  is  no  disposition  in  depraved  human 
nature  more  deeply  inwrought,  or  more  incessantly  operative, 
than  the  disposition  to  rely  upon  something  done  by  us  for 
securing  the  divine  favour.  It  is  this  disposition  which  has 
led  to  all  that  enormous  mass  of  superstitious  observances 
which  distinguishes  the  Papal  system,  and  which  we  have 
every  reason  to  beUeve  is  built  upon  by  millions,  as  the  foun- 
dation of  hope,  instead  of  Christ.  Whenever,  therefore,  any 
external  rite  becomes  the  grand  distinction  of  a  sect,  and  the 
object  of  something  approaching  to  sectarian  idolatry,  we 
may  be  sure  there  exists  not  only  the  danger,  but  the  actual 


92  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

commencement,  to  some  extent,  of  that  superstitious  reliance, 
which  he  who  has  not  learned  to  fear,  "  knows  nothing  of 
the  human  heart  yet  as  he  ought  to  know." 

That  this  suggestion  has  something  more  than  mere  fancy 
on  which  to  rest,  is  evident  from  facts  of  recent  and  most 
mournful  occurrence.  A  large  and  daily  increasing  sect  has 
arisen,  within  a  few  years,  in  the  bosom  of  the  Baptist  de- 
nomination which  maintains  the  delusive  and  destructive  doc- 
trine, that  baptism  is  regeneration ;  that  no  man  can  be  re- 
generated who  is  not  immersed ;  and  that  all,  without  excep- 
tion, who  have  a  historical  faith,  and  are  immersed,  are  of 
course,  in  a  state  of  salvation.  This  pernicious  heresy,  so 
contrary  to  the  plainest  principles  and  facts  of  the  word  of 
Ood,  and  so  manifestly  adapted  to  destroy  the  souls  of  all 
who  believe  it,  has  been  propagated  to  a  melancholy  extent, 
by  a  plausible,  reckless,  and  impious  demagogue,  and  is  sup- 
posed to  embrace  one  half  of  the  Baptist  body  in  the  western 
country,  besides  many  in  the  east.  In  short,  the  Baptist 
churches,  in  large  districts  of  country,  are  so  rent  in  pieces, 
and  deluded  by  the  miserable  impostor  referred  to,  that  their 
prospects,  for  many  years  to  come,  are  not  only  gloomy,  but' 
without  a  special  interposition  of  the  King  of  Zion  in  their 
favour,  altogether  desperate. 

Now  I  maintain  that  this  wretched  delusion  is  by  no  means 
an  unnatural  result  of  the  doctrine  and  practice  of  our  Bap- 
tist brethren,  in  regard  to  the  baptismal  rite.  Multitudes  of 
them,  I  know,  reject  and  abhor  the  heresy  in  question  as 
much  as  any  of  us.  But  have  they  duly  considered,  that  it 
seems  naturally  to  have  grown  out  of  their  own  theory  and 
practice  in  regard  to  baptism ;  their  attaching  such  a  dispro- 
portioned  importance  to  the  mode  of  administering  that  ordi- 
nance ;  often,  very  often,  directing  the  attention  of  the  people 
more  to  the  river  than  the  cross ;  excluding  all  from  Chris- 
tian communion,  however  pious,  who  have  not  been  immer- 
sed ;  and  making  representations  which,  whether  so  intended 
or  not,  naturally  lead  the  weak  and  the  uninformed  to  con 
sider  immersion  as  a  kind  of  talisman,  always  connected  with 
a  saving  blessing?  This,  I  sincerely  believe,  is  the  native 
tendency  of  the  doctrine  of  our  Baptist  brethren,  although 
they,  I  am  equally  confident,  neither  perceive  nor  admit  this 
to  be  the  case.  If  pious  Christians  who  have  not  been  im- 
mersed cannot  be  admitted  to  communion  in  the  church  below, 
there  would  seem  to  be  still  more  reason  for  excluding  them 
from  the  purer  church  above.  And  so  far  as  this  principle 
is  received  and  cherished,  though  far  from  being  aUke  mis- 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  93 

chievous  in  all  cases,  it  can  scarcely  fail  of  predisposing  many 
minds  in  favour  of  that  awful  delusion,  by  which  we  have 
reason  to  believe  that  not  a  few,  under  its  higher  workings 
have  been  blinded,  betrayed,  and  lost. 

9.  Finally ;  that  immersion  cannot  be  considered,  to  say 
the  least,  as  essential  to  a  valid  baptism,  is  plain  from  the 
history  of  this  ordinance. 

It  is  not  denied  that,  for  the  first  few  centuries  after  Christ, 
the  most  common  mode  of  administering  baptism,  was  by 
immersion.  But  it  is  maintained  that  affusion  and  sprinkling 
were  also  practised,  and  when  used,  were  considered  as  per- 
fectly valid  and  sufficient.  Of  this  the  proof  is  so  complete 
and  indubitable,  that  no  one  really  acquainted  with  the  early 
history  of  the  church,  will  think,  for  a  moment,  of  calling  it 
in  question.  The  learned  fVall,  whose  "  History  of  Infant 
Baptism"  is  generally  considered,  by  competent  judges,  as 
one  of  the  most  profound  and  faithful  works  extant,  on  the 
subject  before  us ;  after  showing  conclusively  that  Poedo- 
baptists  ought  not  to  refuse  the  admission,  that  baptism  by 
dipping  was  the  most  prevalent  mode,  even  in  the  western 
church,  for  a  number  of  centuries  after  Christ ;  goes  on  to 
remark  that,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Antipoedobaptists  will  be 
quite  as  unfair  in  their  turn,  if  they  do  not  grant,  that  in 
cases  of  sickness,  weakliness,  haste,  want  of  a  sufficient 
quantity  of  water,  or  any  such  extraordinary  occasion,  bap- 
tism by  the  affusion  of  water  on  the  face,  was,  by  the  an- 
cients, counted  sufficient  baptism.  Of  the  testimony  which 
he  offers  in  support  of  this  statement,  a  specimen  will  be  pre- 
sented.* 

Eusebius  states,  (Book  6,  chapter  43,)  on  the  authority  of 
preceding  writers,  that  Novatian  being  sick,  and  near  death, 
as  was  supposed,  was  baptized  on  his  bed  by  affusion.  He, 
however,  recovered,  and  was  afterwards  ordained  to  the 
work  of  the  ministry.  And  although  some  questioned, 
whether  a  man  who  had  been  brought  to  make  a  profession 
of  religion  only  on  a  sick  bed,  and  when  he  considered  him- 
self as  about  to  die,  ought  to  be  made  a  minister;  yet  this 
doubt  arose,  we  are  assured,  not  from  any  apprehension  that 
the  baptism  itself  was  incomplete ;  but  on  the  principle,  that 
he  who  came  to  the  faith  not  voluntarily,  but  from  necessity, 
ought  not  to  be  made  a  priest,  unless  his  subsequent  diligence 
and  faith  should  be  distinguished  and  highly  commendable. 

Of  the  character  of  Cyprian,  who  flourished  in  the  former 

»  Wall,  Part  II.  chapter  ix.  p.  352,  &c. 

24*  9* 


94  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

part  of  the  third  century,  enough  has  been  said  in  a  preced- 
ing discourse.  A  certain  Magnus,  a  country  minister,  con- 
sulted him  on  the  question,  whether  those  who  had  been  in- 
troduced into  the  Christian  Church,  by  baptism  on  their  sick 
beds,  and,  of  course,  by  affusion  or  sprinkUng,  ought  to  be 
baptized  again,  if  they  recovered?  Cyprian's  answer  to 
this  question  is  as  follows  : 

"  You  inquire,  my  dear  son,  what  I  think  of  such  as  at- 
tain grace  in  time  of  sickness  and  infirmity :  whether  they 
are  to  be  accounted  lawful  Christians,  because  they  have  not 
been  washed  all  over  with  the  water  of  salvation,  but  have 
only  had  some  of  it  poured  on  them.  In  which  matter  I 
would  use  so  much  modesty  and  humility,  as  not  to  pre- 
scribe so  positively,  but  that  every  one  should  enjoy  the 
freedom  of  his  own  thought,  and  do  as  he  thinks  best.  I  do, 
however,  according  to  the  best  of  my  mean  capacity,  judge 
thus  :  That  the  divine  favours  can  in  no  wise  be  mutilated  or 
weakened,  so  that  any  thing  less  than  the  whole  of  them  is 
conveyed,  where  the  benefit  of  them  is  received  with  a  full 
and  complete  faith,  on  the  part  both  of  the  giver  and  receiver. 
For,  in  the  sacrament  of  salvation,  the  contagion  of  sin  is  not 
washed  ojEf  in  the  same  manner  as  the  filth  of  the  body  is  in 
a  carnal  and  secular  bath.  It  is  entirely  in  a  diflferent  way 
that  the  heart  of  a  believer — it  is  after  another  fashion  that 
the  mind  of  man  is  by  faith  cleansed.  In  the  sacraments  of 
salvation,  through  the  indulgence  of  God,  when  necessity 
compels,  the  shortest  way  of  transacting  divine  matters,  con- 
veys the  whole  benefit  to  those  who  believe.  Nor  let  any 
be  moved  by  the  fact,  that  the  sick,  when  they  are  baptized, 
are  only  perfused  or  sprinkled,  since  the  Scripture  says, 
by  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  (chapter  xxxvi.  25,  36,)  "I  will 
sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean  ;  from 
all  your  filthiness  and  from  all  your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you ;  a 
new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put 
within  you."  It  is  also  said  in  the  book  of  numbers,  (chap, 
xix.)  "  And  the  man  which  shall  be  unclean  until  the  even- 
ing, shall  be  purified  on  the  third  day,  and  on  the  seventh 
day,  and  he  shall  be  clean.  But  if  he  shall  not  be  purified 
on  the  third  day,  and  on  the  seventh  day,  he  shall  not  be 
clean,  and  that  soul  shall  be  cut  oflf  from  Israel,  because  the 
water  of  aspersion  hath  not  been  sprinkled  upon  him."  And 
again,  the  Lord  spake  unto  Moses,  in  the  book  of  Numbers, 
(chap  viii.)  "  Take  the  Levites  from  among  the  children  of 
Israel,  and  cleanse  them ;  and  thus  shalt  thou  do  unto  them 
to  cleanse  them  ;  sprinkle  water  of  purifying  upon  them." 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  95 

And  again,  "  the  water  of  aspersion  is  purification."  From 
which  it  appears  that  sprinkling  is  sufficient  instead  of  im- 
mersion; and  whensoever  it  is  done,  if  there  be  a  sound 
faith,  on  the  part  both  of  the  giver  and  receiver,  it  is  perfect 
and  complete." 

From  these  passages,  as  well  as  from  a  number  of  others, 
which  might  be  quoted,  found  in  the  works  of  Cyprian,  it  is 
evident,  that,  in  a  little  more  than  one  hundred  and  fifty 
years  from  the  death  of  the  last  apostle,  cases  of  baptism  by 
perfusion  or  sprinkling  had  notoriously,  and  in  repeated  in- 
stances, occurred;  that  such  examples  were  found  among 
the  heretics,  as  well  as  in  the  orthodox  church ;  that  a  man 
so  learned  and  pious  as  the  venerable  Cyprian,  was  de- 
cisively of  the  opinion  that  they  were  to  be  justified;  and, 
finally,  that  he  considered  this  as  a  point  concerning  which 
Christians  were  at  liberty  to  entertain  their  own  opinion,  and 
to  do  as  they  judged  best.  Plainly  implying  that  he  did  not 
consider  it  at  all  as  an  essential  matter. 

Origen  was  contemporary  with  Cyprian.  He  wrote  in 
the  Greek  language.  It  was  his  vernacular  tongue  ;  and  he 
was,  probably,  the  most  learned  man  of  the  century  in  which 
he  lived.  This  venerable  Christian  father,  commenting  on  1 
Kings,  xviii.  33,  in  which  we  read  of  Elijah's  ordering  water 
to  be  poured  on  Lhe  burnt  sacrifice,  tells  us  that  he  baptized 
the  wood  on  the  altar.  Was  not  Origen  a  good  judge  of  the 
meaning  of  a  Greek  word?  Can  we  imagine  that  he  would 
have  used  the  word  baptize  in  this  sense,  if  he  had  regarded 
immersion  as  its  exclusive  meaning? 

When  Laurentius,  a  Roman  deacon,  about  the  middle  of 
the  third  century,  was  brought  to  the  stake  to  suffer  martyr- 
dom, a  soldier  who  had  been  employed  to  be  one  of  his  exe- 
cutioners, professed  to  be  converted,  and  requested  baptism 
from  the  hands  of  him  whom  he  had  been  engaged  to  assist 
in  burning.  For  this  purpose  a  pitcher  of  water  was 
brought,  and  the  soldier  baptized  at  the  place  of  execution.* 
In  circumstances  so  solemn  as  these,  surely  no  conscientious 
man  would  have  sported  with  a  divine  ordinance,  or  sub- 
jected it  to  any  essential  mutilation.  It  was,  doubtless, 
deemed  a  sufl[icient  mode  of  administering  baptism. 

Gennadius,  a  distinguished  ecclesiastic  of  Marseilles,  in 
the  fifth  century,  speaks  of  baptism  as  administered  in  the 
French  church  indifferently,  by  either  immersion  or  aff'usion, 
or  sprinkling.     For  having  said,  "We  beheve  the  way  of 

*  Walfridius  Strabo,  De  Rebus  Ecclesiast.  as  quoted  by  Wall. 


96  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

salvation  to  be  open  only  to  baptized  persons;"  he  adds, 
"except  only  in  the  ease  of  martyrdom,  in  which  all  the 
sacraments  of  baptism  are  completed."  Then,  to  show  how 
martyrdom  has  all  in  it  that  baptism  has,  he  says,  "  The  per- 
son to  be  baptized,  owns  his  faith  before  the  priest ;  and 
when  the  interrogatories  are  put  to  him,  makes  his  answer. 
The  same  does  a  martyr  before  the  heathen  judge.  He  also 
owns  his  faith;  and  when  the  question  is  put  to  him,  makes 
answer.  The  one,  after  his  confession  is  either  wetted  with 
the  water,  or  else  plunged  into  it;  and  the  other,  is  either 
wetted  with  his  own  blood,  or  plunged  into  the  fire."  This 
language  plainly  evinces  that  in  the  time  of  Gennadius,  both 
modes  of  baptism  were  in  use  and  deemed  equally  valid. 

Thomas  Aquinas,  and  Bonaventura,  are  well  known  as 
two  learned  ecclesiastics  of  the  twelfth  century.  In  their 
time  it  is  evident  that  both  plunging  and  affusion  were  used 
in  the  churches  of  Italy,  in  the  administration  of  baptism. 
Aquinas,  in  writing  on  the  subject,  expresses  himself  thus : 
•'  Baptism  may  be  given  not  only  by  immersion,  but  also  by 
affusion  of  water,  or  by  sprinkling  with  it.  But  it  is  the 
safer  way  to  baptize  by  immersion,  because  that  is  the  most 
common  custom."  On  the  other  hand,  his  contemporary, 
Bonaventura,  observes,  *'  The  way  of  affusion  in  baptism 
was  probably  used  by  the  apostles,  and  was,  in  his  time, 
used  in  the  churches  of  France,  and  some  others;"  but  re- 
marks, "  The  method  of  dipping  into  the  water  is  the  more 
common,  and  therefore  the  fitter  and  safer." 

The  Synod  of  Anglers,  A.  D.  1275,  speaks  of  dipping 
and  pouring  as  indifferently  used ;  and  blames  some  igno- 
rant priests,  because  they  dipped  or  poured  on  water,  but 
once;  and  at  the  same  time  declaring  that  the  general  custom 
of  the  church  was  to  dip,  or  to  pour  on  water  three  times. 
The  Synod  of  Langres,  A.  D.  1404,  speaks  of  pouring  or 
perfusion  only.  "  Let  the  priest  make  three  pourings  or 
sprinklings  of  water  on  the  infanVs  head,"  &c.  The 
Council  of  Cologne,  in  1536,  evidently  intimate  that  both 
modes  were  constantly  practised.  Their  language  is,  "  The 
child  is  thrice  either  dipped  or  wetted  with  water."  Fifteen 
years  afterwards,  in  the  Agenda  of  the  Church  of  Mentz, 
published  by  Sebastian,  there  is  found  the  following  direc 
tion:  "Then  let  the  priest  take  the  child  on  his  left  arm, 
and  holding  him  over  the  font,  let  him,  with  his  right  hand, 
three  several  times,  take  water  out  of  the  font,  and  pour  it  on 
the  child's  head,  so  that  the  water  may  wet  its  head  and 
shoulders."     Then  they  give  a  note  to  this  purpose;  that 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  97 

immersion,  once  or  thrice,  or  pouring  of  water  may  be  used, 
and  have  been  used,  in  the  church  ;  that  this  variety  does  not 
aiier  the  nature  of  baptism !  and  that  a  man  would  do  ill  to 
break  the  custom  of  the  church  for  either  of  them.  But  they 
add,  that  it  is  better,  if  the  church  will  allow,  to  use  pouring 
on  of  water.  "  For  suppose,"  say  they,  "  the  priest  be  old 
and  feeble,  or  have  the  palsy  in  his  hands ;  or  the  weather 
be  very  cold ;  or  the  child  be  very  infirm ;  or  too  big  to  be 
dipped  in  the  font ;  then  it  is  much  fitter  to  use  affusion  of 
the  water."  Then  they  bring  the  instance  of  the  apostles 
baptizing  three  thousand  at  a  time ;  and  the  instance  of 
Laurentius,  the  Roman  deacon,  before  spoken  of — and  add, 
"  That,  therefore,  there  may  not  be  one  way  for  the  sick, 
and  another  for  the  healthy ;  one  for  children,  and  another 
for  bigger  persons ;  it  is  better  that  the  administrator  of  this 
sacram^eut  do  observe  the  safest  way,  which  is,  to  pour  wa- 
ter thrice;  unless  the  custom  be  to  the  contrary."  [Wcdl, 
Part  11.  chapter  ix.  p.  360,  361.) 

One  more  historical  record,  which  though  apparently  in- 
considerable in  itself,  is,  in  my  view,  decisive,  shall  close 
the  present  list  of  testimonies.  It  is  one  referred  to  in  a  for- 
mer discourse,  when  speaking  of  Infant  baptism.  I  mean 
the  undoubted  fact,  that  the  Waldenses,  those  far-famed  and 
devoted  witnesses  of  the  truth,  who  maintained,  during  the 
darkness  and  desolation  of  the  Papacy,  "  the  testimony  of 
Jesus,"  very  soon  after  the  Reformation  opened,  approached 
with  the  most  cordial  friendliness,  the  Reformed  churches  of 
Geneva  and  France ;  recognised  them  as  sisters  in  the  Lord ; 
received  ministers  from  them  ;  and  maintained  with  them 
the  most  affectionate  communion.  Now  it  is  certain  that, 
at  that  time,  in  the  churches  of  both  Geneva  and  France, 
the  baptism  of  infants,  and  the  administration  of  the  ordi 
nance  by  sprinkling,  were  in  constant  use.  On  such  an 
incontestable  fact,  the  argiunent  is  this  :  The  Waldenses 
either  baptized  by  sprinkling  or  by  immersion.  If  by 
sprinkling,  an  important  testimony  is  gained  in  favour  of 
that  mode,  from  ecclesiastical  history.  If  by  immersion, 
they  plainly  laid  no  such  stress  upon  the  mode  as  our  Bap- 
tist brethren  now  do;  since  they  were  willing  to  commune 
with,  and  to  receive  ministers  from,  churches  which  were  in 
the  habit  of  using  sprinkling  only.  In  my  view,  as  I  said, 
this  argument  is  decisive.  We  know  that  the  Waldenses 
habitually  baptized  infants^  but  in  what  mode  they  admin- 
istered the  ordinance  is  not  quite  so  certain.  But  one  thing 
is  unquestionable  ;  and  that  is,  that  those  pious  witnesses 


yo  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

for  Christ,  even  if  they  did  immerse,  did  not  consider  the 
mode  as  essential,  but  were  ready  to  hold  the  most  unreser- 
ved communion  with  those  who  practised  aspersion. 

These  testimonies,  and  many  more  to  the  same  purpose, 
which  might  be  presented  if  it  were  necessary,  must,  it  ap- 
pears to  me,  satisfy  every  impartial  mind,  that,  from  the 
days  of  the  apostles  down  to  the  Reformation,  affusion,  and 
sprinkling  in  baptism,  as  well  as  immersion,  have  been  in 
constant  use  ;  that  some  of  the  gravest  and  most  soberminded 
writers,  have  firmly  defended  the  two  former,  as  well  as  the 
latter;  that  the  strong  arguments  in  favour  of  affusion  or 
sprinkling,  as  the  preferable  mode,  have  been,  in  all  ages, 
distinctly  appreciated ;  and  that  it  has  ever  been  considered 
as  a  part  of  Christian  liberty  to  use  either  mode,  as  may  be 
conscientiously  preferred. 

Suffer  me  now  to  close  this  discussion  by  presenting  two 
or  three  practical  inferences  from  the  view  which  has  been 
given  of  this  latter  part  of  the  subject.     And, 

1.  If  our  statement  of  evidence  as  to  the  mode  of  baptism 
be  correct,  then  the  conduct  of  our  Baptist  brethren,  in  not 
only  denying  to  the  infant  seed  of  believers  all  right  to  mem- 
bership in  the  church,  but  also  making  immersion  indispen- 
sable to  a  valid  baptism,  are  chargeable  with  taking  ground 
which  is  plainly  unscriptural,  and  with  dividing  the  body  of 
Christ,  for  a  mere  uncommanded  circumstance  ;  a  circum- 
stance in  regard  to  which  all  reasoning,  and  all  history  are, 
on  the  whole  against  them.  We  do  not  deny  that  the  bap- 
tisms of  these  brethren  are  valid ;  but  we  do  deny  that  they 
rest  upon  any  more  solid  ground  than  ours ;  and  we  are  per- 
suaded that,  without  the  least  authority,  they  lay  on  the  re- 
cipients of  baptism  "  a  yoke  of  bondage,"  which  has  no 
warrant  from  the  word  of  God  ;  and  which  the  whole  genius 
of  the  Gospel  forbids.  Surely,  if  the  inspired  writers  had  re- 
garded immersion  in  the  same  light  with  our  Baptist  brethren, 
we  should  have  had  some  explicit  statements  on  this  subject 
in  the  instructions  given  to  the  churches  in  the  infancy  of 
their  New  Testament  course.  And,  surely,  the  attempt  to 
lay  burdens  which  the  Spirit  of  God  has  no  where  authori- 
zed, is  to  incur  the  guilt  imputed  to  those  who  "  add  to"  the 
things  which  are  contained  in  the  book  of  life.  On  this 
subject  I  feel  that  it  is  no  longer  our  duty  to  content  our- 
selves with  standing  on  the  defensive.  Our  opponents  in  this 
controversy,  I  verily  believe,  are  chargeable  with  "  teaching 
for  doctrines  the  commandments  of  men;"  and,  of  course,  I 
consider  them  as  equally  sinning  against  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  and  against  '*  the  generation  of  the  righteous." 


INFANT  BAPTISM.  99 

2.  These  things  being  so,  we  may  see  how  the  conduct 
of  some  of  our  Baptist  brethren,  in  particular  states  of  the 
church,  ought  to  be  regarded  by  the  friends  of  Zion.  The 
conduct  to  which  I  refer  is,  their  having  so  often  intruded 
into  churches  in  which  some  reUgious  attention  has  existed, 
and  in  which  scarcely  a  family  of  their  own  denomination 
was  to  be  found ;  and  when  the  minds  of  many  individuals 
were  anxious  respecting  their  eternal  interests,  immediately 
broaching  the  controversy  respecting  infant  baptism,  and 
immersion,  and  distressing  the  consciences  of  serious  inqui- 
rers— not  with  the  great  and  momentous  question,  "  what 
they  shall  do  to  be  saved  ?"  but — before  their  minds  are  at 
all  setded  as  to  their  personal  hope  in  Christ,  or  their  fitness 
for  any  sacramental  seal ;  perplexing  them  with  the  contro- 
versy about  an  external  rite,  which  they  themselves  grant 
is  not  essential  to  salvation.  I  have  personally  known  such 
proceedings  to  occur  with  a  frequency  as  wonderful  as  it 
was  revolting ;  and  with  an  obtrusive  zeal  worthy  of  a  better 
cause.  Young  and  timid  consciences  have  been  distressed, 
if  not  with  the  direct  assertion,  at  least  by  the  artful  insin- 
uation, that  their  particular  mode  of  baptism  was  all  in  all ; 
that  there  could  be  no  safe  Christianity  without  it.  The 
river,  the  river,  really  seemed,  by  some,  to  be  placed  in  the 
room  of  the  Saviour  I 

There  is  something  in  all  this  so  deeply  offensive  to  every 
enlightened  and  judicious  Chrisdan:  which  involves  so 
much  meanness ;  and  which  manifests  so  much  more  con- 
cern for  the  enlargement  of  a  sect,  than  the  salvation  of 
souls,  that  it  is  difficult  to  speak  of  it  in  terms  of'  as  strong 
reprobation  as  it  deserves,  without  infringing  on  the  limits 
of  Christian  decorum  and  respectfulness.  It  is  conduct  of 
which  no  candid  and  generous  mind,  actuated  by  the  Spirit 
of  Christ,  will  ever  be  guilty.  And,  I  am  happy  to  add,  it 
is  conduct  in  which  many  belonging  to  the  denomination  to 
which  I  allude,  have  souls  too  enlarged  and  elevated  to  allow 
themselves  to  indulge. 

3.  Once  more ;  let  us  all  be  careful,  my  Christian  friends, 
as  a  practical  deduction  from  what  has  been  said,  to  forbear 
"  returning  evil  for  evil,"  on  this,  or  any  other  point  of  ec- 
clesiastical controversy.  However  other  denominations  may 
treat  us,  let  us  never  be  chargeable  with  treating  the7n  in  an 
unchristian  manner.  We  are  conscientiously  compelled  to 
differ  from  our  Baptist  brethren.  We  believe  them  to  be  in 
error ;  in  important  and  highly  mischievous  error.  But 
what   then  ?     They  are  still  brethren  in   Christ.     Let  us, 


100  INFANT  BAPTISM. 

therefore,  love  them,  and,  however  they  may  treat  ws,  treat 
them  with  fraternal  respectfulness,  and  seek  their  welfare. 
Let  us  never  indulge  a  spirit  of  mihallowed  proselytism. 
Let  us  never  employ  any  other  weapons  against  them  than 
those  of  candid  argument,  and  fervent  prayer.  Instead  of 
"  doting  about  questions,  and  strifes  of  words,  whereof  come 
envy,  railings,  evil  surmisings,  and  corrupt  dispulings ;"  let 
us  follow  after  patience,  forbearance  and  charity ;  ever  re- 
membering that  all  who  really  belong  to  Christ,  however 
they  may  differ  in  externals,  are  "one  body  in  Him,  and 
members  one  of  another."  May  we  all  be  deeply  imbued 
with  the  spirit  which  ought  to  flow  from  this  precious  truth ; 
and  may  all  that  we  do  be  done  with  charity  !     Amen  ! 


(101) 


ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

(Note  A.) 

GIVING  A  NAME  IN  BAPTISM. 

In  administering  the  rite  of  circumcision,  it  was  custo- 
mary to  give  a  name  to  the  child.  This  is  evident  from  the 
circumstances  attending  the  circumcision  of  John  the  Baptist, 
as  related  in  the  gospel  according  to  Luke,  i.  59 — 64 ;  and 
also  those  attending  the  circumcision  of  our  blessed  Saviour, 
as  found  recorded  in  the  next  chapter  of  the  same  gospel. 
The  same  practice  probably  existed,  from  the  earUest  period 
of  the  New  Testament  church,  in  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism. It  makes,  however,  no  necessary,  or  even  important 
part  of  the  rite.  A  baptism  administered  without  a  name, 
would,  of  course,  be  just  as  valid  as  if  one  were  announced ; 
and  there  is  nothing  in  the  essential  nature  of  the  case, 
which  would  forbid  a  name  given  to  a  child  in  baptism  being 
reconsidered  and  altered  afterwards.  Yet,  inasmuch  as  a 
child,  when  baptized,  is  announced  to  the  church  as  a  new 
member,  subject  to  its  maternal  watch  and  care,  it  ought,  in 
common,  for  obvious  reasons,  to  be  introduced  and  known 
under  some  name,  so  that  each  child  may  be  distinguished, 
and  may  receive  its  appropriate  treatment.  To  introduce  a 
nameless  member  into  any  societ}'-,  would  be  both  unreason- 
able and  inconvenient.  Moreover,  it  is  of  great  conse- 
quence, both  to  civil  and  religious  society,  that  the  birth  and 
baptism  of  every  child  be  recorded  in  regular  church  books. 
The  formation  of  this  record  requires,  it  is  evident,  the  use 
of  a  name ;  and  after  the  name  is  adopted  and  recorded  in 
this  public  register,  it  is  plain  that  frequent  alterations  of 
the  name,  and  tampering  in  a  corresponding  manner,  with 
the  public  register  would  lead  to  endless  confusion  and  mis- 
chief. Thus  we  are  conducted,  by  a  very  obvious  train  of 
reasoning,  to  the  conclusion  that  the  name  announced  in 
baptism  ought,  in  general,  to  be  carefully  retained,  without 
subtraction  or  addition.  Sometimes,  indeed,  the  civil  law 
requires  such  registers  to  be  made  and  preserved,  in  regard 
to  every  birth  and  baptism.  Where  this  is  the  case,  there 
is,  evidently,  an  additional  reason  for  adhering  strictly  to 
the  name  announced  in  baptism,  recorded  in  the  appropriate 
25  10 


102  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

register,  and  thus  brought  under  official  notice,  and  recorded 
as  the  property  of  the  state.  See  a  number  of  curious  ques- 
tions proposed  and  resolved,  concerning  the  names  imposed 
in  baptism,  in  the  Politicce  Ecclesiastics  of  the  learned  Gis- 
bertus  Voetius.     Tom.  I.  p.  714 — 724. 


(Note  B.) 
baptismal  regeneration. 

This  unscriptural  and  pernicious  doctrine  is  not  confined 
to  the  Roman  Catholics,  in  whose  system  it  may  without 
impropriety  be  said  to  be  indigenous  ;  but  is  also  frequently 
found  in  the  pulpits  and  manuals  of  some  Protestants,  in 
the  midst  of  whose  general  principles,  it  ought  to  be  regard- 
ed as  a  poisonous  exotic. 

I.  The  doctrine  referred  to,  as  held  by  some  Protestants, 
in  its  most  objectionable  form,  appears  to  be  this  : — that  the 
spiritual  change  which  the  Scriptures  designate  by  the  term 
regeneration,  is  always  attendant  upon,  and  effected  by,  the 
rite  of  baptism,  when  duly  administered;  that,  on  the  one 
hand,  every  person,  infant  or  adult,  who  has  been  baptized 
by  an  authorized  minister,  is  a  regenerated  person ;  and  that, 
on  the  other,  every  person  who  has  not  been  baptized, 
however  deep  or  mature  his  penitence  and  faith,  is  still  un- 
regenerate.  In  short,  the  position  is,  that  the  inward  grace 
of  regeneration  always  accompanies  the  outward  sign  of 
baptism ;  that  they  are  inseparable ;  that  the  one  cannot  exist 
Avithout  the  other ;  that  he  who  has  been  thus  regenerated, 
if  he  die  without  falling  from  grace,  is  certainly  saved ;  that 
baptism  is  essential  to  salvation;  and  that  to  call  by  the 
name  of  regeneration  any  moral  change,  from  the  love  of 
sin  to  the  love  of  holiness,  which  takes  place  either  before 
or  after  baptism,  is  unscriptural  and  absurd.  This,  as  I 
understand  them,  is  the  doctrine  maintained  by  Bishop 
Tomline,  Bishop  Marsh,  Bishop  Mant,  and  a  number  of 
other  writers,  of  equal  conspicuity,  in  the  church  of  En- 
gland, and  by  not  a  few  divines  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
church  in  our  own  country. 

This  doctrine,  I  apprehend,  is  contrary  to  Scripture ;  con- 
trary to  experience  ;  contrary  to  the  declared  opinion  of  the 
most  wise,  pious,  and  venerated  divines  even  of  the  Episco- 
pal denomination ;   and  adapted  to  generate  the  most  danger- 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES.  103 

ous  errors  with  regard  to  Christian  character,  and  the  Gospel 
plan  of  salvation. 

1.  It  is  contrary  to  Scripture.  Without  regeneration,  the 
Scriptures  declare,  it  is  impossible  to  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.  But  the  penitent  malefactor  on  the  cross  un- 
doubtedly entered  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  if  we  are  to 
credit  our  Lord's  express  declaration.  Yet  this  penitent, 
believing  malefactor  was  never  baptized,  therefore  he  was 
regenerated  without  baptism ;  and  of  course,  regeneration 
and  baptism  are  not  inseparably  connected.  Again,  Simon 
Magus  received  the  outward  and  visible  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism, with  unquestionable  regularity,  by  an  authorized  ad- 
ministrator ;  yet  who  will  venture  to  say,  that  he  received 
the  "  inward  and  invisible  grace"  signified  and  represented 
in  that  ordinance  ?  He  was  evidently  from  the  beginning  a 
hypocrite,  and  remained,  after  baptism,  as  before  "  in  the 
gall  of  bitterness  and  in  the  bond  of  iniquity."  Therefore 
the  outward  and  sensible  sign,  and  the  inward  and  invisible 
grace  are  not  in  all  cases,  or  necessarily,  connected.  Again ; 
it  is  evident  that  the  apostle  Paul,  Lydia,  the  Ethiopian 
eunuch,  the  Philippian  jailor,  &c.  "  believed  with  the  heart," 
and  were,  consequently,  brought  into  a  state  of  acceptance 
with  God  before  they  were  baptized,  But  we  are  told  (John 
i.  12,  13,)  that  as  many  as  believe  have  been  "  born  of  God," 
and  made  the  "  sons  of  God."  Of  course,  regeneration  may 
take  place,  i^  the  case  of  adults,  ought  to  take  place,  and  in 
these  cases,  did  take  place,  before  baptism ;  and,  conse- 
quently, is  not  the  same  thing  with  baptism,  or  inseparably 
connected  with  that  rite.  Once  more  ;  we  are  assured  in 
Scripture,  that  "  he  who  is  born  of  God,  or  regenerated,  doth 
not  commit  sin,  (that  is,  deliberately  or  habitually,)  for  his 
seed  remaineth  in  him,  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is  born 
of  God;"  and  farther,  that  ''every  one  that  loveth  is  'born 
of  God'  and  knoweth  God ;"  and  that  "  whosoever  believ- 
eth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God."  But  can  it  be 
said  that  this  character  belongs  to  all  who  are  baptized  ?  Or, 
that  none  who  are  unbaptized  manifest  that  they  possess  it? 
Surely  no  one  in  his  senses  will  venture  to  make  the  asser- 
tion. Therefore  a  man  may  be  "  born  of  God"  before  he  is 
baptized,  and,  consequently,  the  administration  of  the  out- 
ward ordinance,  and  that  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  called  in 
the  word  of  God  regeneration,  are  not  always  connected. 

2.  The  doctrine  before  us  is  as  contrary  to  experience  as 
it  is  to  Scripture.  "  It  is  asserted,"  says  an  eminent  divine 
of  the  church  of  England,  now  living — "  It  is  asserted,  that 


104  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

the  spiritual  change  of  heart  called  regeneration  invariably 
takes  place  in  the  precise  article  of  baptism.  If  this  assertion 
be  well  founded,  the  spiritual  change  in  question  will  in- 
variably take  place  in  every  adult  at  the  identical  moment 
when  he  is  baptized ;  that  is  to  say,  at  the  very  instant  when 
the  hand  of  the  priest  brings  his  body  in  contact  with  the 
baptismal  water ;  at  that  precise  instant,  his  understanding 
begins  to  be  illuminated,  his  will  to  be  reformed,  and  his  af- 
fections to  be  purified.  Hitherto  he  has  walked  in  darkness ; 
but  now,  to  use  the  scriptural  phrase,  he  has  passed  from  dark- 
ness to  light.  Hitherto  he  has  been  wrapped  in  a  death-like 
sleep  of  trespasses  and  sins  ;  but  now  he  awakes,  and  rises 
from  the  dead,  Christ  himself  giving  him  life.  Hitherto  he 
has  been  a  chaos  of  vice,  and  ignorance,  and  spiritual  con^ 
fusion ;  the  natural  man  receiving  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit 
of  God,  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him :  but  now  he  is 
created  after  God  In  righteousness  and  true  holiness ;  being 
in  Christ  he  is  a  '  new  creature  ;'  having  become  spiritual, 
tke  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  are  no  longer  foolishness  to 
him ;  he  knows  them  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned. 
Such  are  the  emphatic  terms  in  which  regeneration  is  de- 
scribed by  the  inspired  writers.  What  we  have  to  do,  there- 
fore, I  apprehend,  is  forthwith  to  inquire,  whether  every 
baptized  adult,  without  a  single  exception,  is  invariably 
found  to  declare,  that,  in  the  precise  article  of  baptism,  his 
soul  experienced  a  change  analogous  to  that  which  is  so  un- 
equivocally set  forth  in  the  above  mentioned  texts  of  Scrip- 
ture."* We  need  not  dwell  long  on  the  inquiry.  The  fact 
is  notoriously  not  so.  Nor  does  it  diminish  the  difficulty,  in 
admitting  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  to  say,  as 
the  Arminian  advocates  of  this  doctrine  invariably  do  say, 
that  those  who  are  once  regenerated  may  fall  from  grace,  and 
manifest  a  most  unhallowed  temper  This  is  not  the  ques- 
tion. The  question  is,  does  experience  evince,  that  every 
subject  of  baptism,  who  has  reached  an  age  capable  of  mani- 
festing the  Christian  character,  does,  at  the  moment  of  receiv- 
ing the  baptismal  water,  show  that  he  is  the  subject  of  that 
regenerating  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  "  old 
things  are  passed  away,  and  all  things  become  new  in  the 
Lord  ?"  No  one  who  has  a  particle  of  intelligence  or  can- 
dour can  imagine  that  any  such  fact  exists  ;  but  if  it  do  not, 
then  the  doctrine  under  consideration  falls  of  course. 

3.  The  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration  is  contrary  to 

Faher's  Sermons,  Vol.  I.  p.  145,  146. 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES.  105 

the  declared  opinion  of  the  most  pious,  judicious,  and  vene- 
rable Protestant  divines,  including  those  ol  the  very  highest 
authority  in  the  church  of  England.  Nothing  can  be  more 
certain  than  that  the  mass  of  the  English  reformers  distinctly 
taught  that  baptism  is  a  sign  only  of  regeneration,  and  that 
the  thing  signified  might  or  might  not  accompany  the  ad- 
ministration of  the  outward  ordinance,  according  as  it  was 
received  worthily  or  otherwise.  In  support  of  this  assertion, 
the  most  explicit  quotations  might  be  presented  from  the 
writings  of  those  distinguished  martyrs  and  prelates,  Cran- 
mer,  Latimer,  Ridley,  and  Hooper ;  and  after  them  from  the 
writings  of  the  eminent  bishops,  Jewell,  Davenant,  Hall, 
Usher,  Reynolds,  Leighton,  Hopkins,  Tillotson,  Beveridge, 
Burnet,  Seeker,  and  a  host  of  other  divines  of  the  English 
church,  of  whose  elevated  character  it  would  be  little  less 
than  an  insult  to  any  intelligent  reader  to  attempt  to  offer 
testimony.  All  these  men  declare  in  the  most  solemn  man- 
ner, against  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration,  in  the 
sense  which,  we  are  now  considering.  Indeed,  I  cannot  call 
to  mind  a  single  writer  of  that  church,  from  the  time  of 
Archbishop  Cranmer  to  the  present  hour,  who  had  the  least 
claim  to  the  character  of  an  evangelical  man,  who  did  not  re- 
pudiate the  doctrine  which  I  am  now  opposing  ;  and  not  a 
few  of  them  denounce  it  as  Popish,  and  adapted  to  subvert 
the  whole  system  of  vital  and  spiritual  religion. 

4.  The  last  argument  which  I  shall  urge  against  the  doc- 
trine of  baptismal  regeneration,  is,  that  it  is  adapted  to  ge- 
nerate the  most  fatal  errors  with  regard  to  the  Gospel  plan 
of  salvation. 

So  far  as  this  doctrine  is  believed,  its  native  tendency  is, 
to  beget  a  superstitious  and  unwarranted  reliance  on  an  exter- 
nal ordinance  ;  to  lower  our  estimate  of  that  inward  spiritual 
sanctification  which  constitutes  the  essence  of  the  Christian 
character;  in  fact,  to  supersede  the  necessity  of  that  spiritual 
change  of  heart,  of  which  the  Scriptures  speak  so  much,  and 
for  which  the  most  holy  and  eminent  servants  of  Christ 
have,  in  all  ages,  contended.  The  truth  is,  the  doctrine  now 
under  consideration  is  the  very  same  in  substance,  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  opus  operatum  of  the  Papists,  which  all 
evangelical  Protestants  have  been  opposing  for  more  than 
three  hundred  years,  as  a  mischievous  delusion.  Accor- 
dingly, the  Popish  character  and  fatal  tendency  of  this  error 
have  been  unreservedly  acknowledged  by  many  bishops,  and 
other  pious  divines  of  the  church  of  England,  as  well  as  by 
many  of  the  same  denomination  in  this  country. 
25*  10* 


106  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

Further ;  if  regeneration,  which  is  the  commencement  of 
holiness  in  the  soul,  is  always  communicated  in  baptism, 
then  it  follows,  as,  indeed,  those  who  entertain  this  doctrine 
distinctly  avow, — that  baptism  invariably  places  its  subject  in 
a  state  of  salvation ;  so  that  every  baptized  person  who  dies 
immediately  after  the  administration  of  this  sacrament,  is  in- 
fallibly sure  of  entering  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  If  this  doc- 
trine were  fully  believed,  would  not  every  thinkmg,  anxious 
parent  refrain  from  having  his  child  baptized  in  infancy,  and 
reserve  the  ordinance  for  an  hour  of  extremity,  such  as  the 
approach  of  death,  that  it  might  serve  as  an  unfailing  pass- 
port to  glory  ?  Would  it  not  be  wise  in  every  adult  who 
may  be  brought  to  a  knowledge  of  the  Saviour,  from  Pagan- 
ism, or  from  the  world,  to  put  off  his  baptism  to  the  last  hour 
of  his  life,  that  he  might  be  sure  of  departmg  in  safety?  This 
is  well  known  to  have  been  one  of  the  actual  corruptions  ot 
the  fourth  century,  growing  out  of  the  very  error  which  I  am 
ROW  opposing.  "It  was  the  custom  of  many,"  says  Dr. 
Mosheim,  "  in  that  century,  to  put  off  their  baptism  till  the 
last  hour ;  that  thus  immediately  after  receiving  by  this 
rite  the  remission  of  their  sins,  they  might  ascend  pure  and 
spotless  to  the  mansions  of  life  and  immortality."  This  is 
no  far-fetched  or  strange  conceit.  It  is  the  native  fruit  of  the 
doctrine  before  us.  Nay,  if  we  suppose  this  pernicious 
theory  to  take  full  possession  of  the  mind,  would  it  not  be 
natural  that  a  tender  parent  should  anxiously  desire  his  child 
to  die  immediately  after  baptism ;  or  even,  in  a  desperate 
case,  to  compiass  its  death,  as  infallibly  for  its  eternal  benefit? 
And,  on  the  same  principle,  might  we  not  pray  for  the  death 
of  every  adult,  immediately  after  he  had  received  baptism, 
believing  that  then  "  to  die  would  certainly  be  gain  ?"  In 
fine,  I  see  not,  if  the  doctrine  be  true,  that  a  regenerating  and 
saving  efficacy  attends  every  regular  baptism — I  see  not  how 
we  can  avoid  the  conclusion,  that  every  Pagan,  whether  child 
or  adult,  that  can  be  seized  by  force,  and  however  thought- 
less, reluctant  or  profane,  made  to  submit  to  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism, is  thereby  infallibly  made  "  a  child  of  God,  and  an  in- 
heritor of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ?" 

These  consequences,  which  appear  to  me  demonstrably  to 
flow  from  the  theory  in  question,  afford  sufficient  evidence 
that  it  is  an  unscriptural  and  pernicious  error,  even  if  no 
other  means  of  refutation  could  be  found. 

It  is  not  forgotten  that  language  which  seems,  at  first  view, 
to  countenance  the  doctrine  which  I  am  opposing,  is  found 
in  some  of  the  early  Fathers.     Some  of  them  employ  terms 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES.  107 

which  would  imply,  if  interpreted  literally,  that  baptism  and 
regeneration  were  the  same  thing.  But  the  reason  of  this  is 
obvious.  The  Jews  were  accustomed  to  call  the  converts  to 
their  religion  from  the  Gentiles  little  children,  and  their  in- 
troduction into  the  Jewish  church,  a  new  birth,  because  they 
were  brought,  as  it  were,  into  a  new  moral  world.  Accord 
ingly,  circumcision  is  repeatedly  called  in  Scripture  '■'•thi 
covenant,''^  because  it  was  the  sign  of  the  covenant.  After 
wards,  when  baptism,  as  a  Christian  ordinance,  became 
identified  with  the  reception  of  the  Gospel,  the  early  writers 
and  preachers  began  to  call  this  ordinance  regeneration,  and 
sometimes  illumination,  because  every  adtdt  who  was  bap- 
tized, professed  to  be  born  of  God,  illuminated  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  By  a  common  figure  of  speech,  they  called  the  sign 
by  the  name  of  the  thing  signified.  In  the  truly  primitive 
times  this  language  was  harmless,  and  well  understood;  bu; 
as  superstition  increased,  it  gradually  led  to  mischievou? 
error,  and  became  the  parent  of  complicated  and  deplorable, 
delusions. 

11.  But  there  is  another  view  of  the  doctrine  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  which  is  sometimes  taken,  and  which,  though 
less  pernicious  than  that  which  has  been  examined,  is  still,  I 
apprehend,  fitted  to  mislead,  and,  of  course,  to  do  essential 
mischief.  It  is  this  :  That  baptism  is  that  rite  which  marks 
and  ratifies  the  introduction  of  its  subject  into  the  visible 
kingdom  of  Christ;  that  in  this  ordinance  the  baptized  person 
is  brought  into  a  new  state  or  relation  to  Christ,  and  his 
sacred  family ;  and  that  this  new  state  or  relation  is  desig- 
nated in  the  Scripture  by  the  term  regeneration,  being  in- 
tended to  express  an  ecclesiastical  birth,  that  is,  being 
"born"  into  the  visible  kingdom  of  the  Redeemer.  Those 
who  entertain  this  opinion  do  not  deny,  that  there  is  a  great 
moral  change,  wrought  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  must 
pass  upon  every  one,  before  he  can  be  in  a  state  of  salvation. 
This  they  call  conversion,  renovation,  &c. ;  but  they  tell  us 
that  the  term  '^regeneration''^  ought  not  to  be  applied  to 
this  spiritual  change  ;  that  it  ought  to  be  confined  to  that 
change  of  state  and  of  relation  to  the  visible  kingdom  oj 
Christ  which  is  constituted  by  baptism ;  so  that  a  person, 
according  to  them,  may  be  regenerated,  that  is,  regularly  in- 
troduced into  the  visible  church,  without  being  really  born  of 
the  Spirit.  This  theory,  though  by  no  means  so  fatal  in  its 
tendency  as  the  preceding,  still  appears  to  me  liable  to  the 
following  serious  objections. 

1.  It  makes  an  unauthorised  use  of  an  important  theologi- 


108  ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 

cal  term.  It  is  vain  to  say,  that,  after  giving  fair  notice  of 
the  sense  in  which  we  use  a  term,  no  misapprehension  or 
harm  can  result  from  the  constant  use  of  it  in  that  sense. 
The  plea  is  insufficient.  If  the  sense  in  question  be  an  un- 
usual and  especially  an  unscriptural  one,  no  one  can  estimate 
the  mischief  which  may  result  from  the  use  of  it  in  that 
sense.  Names  are  so  closely  connected  with  things,  that  it 
is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  preserve  the  nomenclature  of 
theology  from  perversion  and  abuse.  If  the  sense  of  the 
word  "  regeneration"  which  is  embraced  in  this  theory, 
were  now  by  common  consent  admitted,  it  would  give  an 
entirely  nevv^  aspect  to  all  those  passages  of  Scripture  in 
which  either  regeneration  or  baptism  is  mentioned,  making 
some  of  them  unmeaning,  and  others  ridiculous  ;  and  render 
unintelligible,  and  in  a  great  measure  useless,  if  not  delusive, 
nine-tenths  of  the  best  works  on  the  subject  of  practical  reli- 
gion that  have  ever  been  written. 

2.  But  there  is  a  more  serious  objection.  If  men  be  told 
that  every  one  who  is  baptized,  is  thereby  regenerated — 
"born  of  God" — "born  of  the  Spirit," — made  a  "new 
creature  in  Christ," — will  not  the  mass  of  mankind,  in  spite 
of  every  precaution  and  explanation  that  can  be  employed, 
be  likely  to  mistake  on  a  fundamental  point ;  to  imagine  that 
the  disease  of  our  nature  is  trivial,  and  that  a  trivial  remedy 
for  it  will  answer;  to  lay  more  stress  than  they  ought  upon 
an  external  rite  ;  and  to  make  a  much  lower  estimate  than 
they  ought  of  the  nature  and  necessity  of  that  holiness  with- 
out which  no  man  shall  see  the  Lord  ? 

After  all,  however,  although  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  re- 
generation, in  the  first  and  most  objectionable  sense,  is 
known  to  be  rejected  by  all  the  truly  evangelical  divines  of 
the  church  of  England,  and  by  the  same  class  in  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  church  in  this  country ;  yet  it  cannot  be  de- 
nied that  something,  to  say  the  least,  very  like  this  doctrine 
is  embodied  in  the  baptismal  service  of  that  denomination  on 
both  sides  of  the  Atlantic.  The  following  specimens  of  its 
language  will  at  once  illustrate  and  confirm  my  meaning: 
"  Seeing  now,  dearly  beloved  brethren,  that  this  child  is  re- 
generate, and  grafted  into  the  body  of  Chrisfs  church,  let 
us  give  thanks  unto  Almighty  God  for  these  benefits,  and 
with  one  accord  make  our  prayers  unto  him,  that  this  child 
may  lead  the  rest  of  his  life  according  to  this  beginning." 
And  again:  "We  yield  thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful 
Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  thee  to  regenerate  this  infarct  hy 
thy  Holy  Spirit,  to  receive  him  for  thine  own  child  by  adop- 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES.  109 

tion,  and  to  incorporate  him  into  thy  holy  church,"  &c. 
The  same  language  is  also  repeated  in  the  baptismal  service 
for  "  those  of  riper  years."  They  are  represented  as  being 
*'  regenerated  ;"  as  being  "  born  again,"  and  *'  made  heirs  of 
salvation  ;"  and  as  having  "  put  on  Christ."  This  language 
is  differently  interpreted,  by  the  Episcopal  ministers  who 
employ  it,  according  to  the  opinion  which  they  adopt  with 
regard  to  baptism.  Those  who  coincide  in  opinion  with 
Bishop  Mant,  and  others  of  similar  sentiments,  make  no 
scruple  of  avowing,  that  these  expressions  literally  import, 
what  they  fully  believe,  that  every  one  who  is  duly  baptized, 
IS,  in  a'lid  by  that  rite,  born  of  the  Spirit,  and  brought  into  a 
state  of  grace  and  salvation.  A  second  class  of  interpreters, 
however,  consider  this  language  of  the  Liturgy  as  merely 
importing  that  the  person  baptized  is  brought  into  a  new 
state,  or  a  new  relation  to  the  visible  church.  While  a  third 
class,  although  they  acknowledge  that  the  language  before 
us,  literally  interpreted,  does  certainly  express  more  than  a 
mere  visible  relation,  even  the  participation  of  truly  spiritual 
and  saving  blessings  ;  yet  say,  that  they  can  conscientiously 
employ  it,  because  a  Liturgy  intended  for  general  use,  ought 
to  be,  and  must  be,  constructed  upon  the  principle,  that  those 
who  come  to  receive  its  offices  are  all  to  be  considered  as 
sincere,  and  as  having  a  rights  in  the  sight  of  God,  to  the 
ordinance  for  which  they  apply  !  And  thus  it  happens,  that 
those  who  reject  as  Popish  and  delusive,  the  doctrine  of 
baptismal  regeneration,  as  taught  by  Mant,  and  those  who 
concur  with  him,  feel  no  difficulty  in  publicly  and  solemnly 
repeating  this  language,  every  time  they  administer  the  ordi- 
nance of  baptism. 

It  is  not  for  one  of  another  communion  to  interpose  be- 
tween the  consciences  of  Episcopal  ministers,  and  the  im- 
port of  their  public  formularies.  In  fidelity  to  my  own 
principles,  however,  and  as  a  warning  to  those  of  my  own 
church  who  may  be  assailed  by  the  proselyting  effiarts  of 
some  of  this  denomination,  I  may  be  permitted  to  say,  that 
if  I  believed  with  Bishop  Mant,  and  his  associates  in  senti- 
ment, the  language  of  the  baptismal  service  would  be  entirely 
to  my  taste ;  but  if  not,  I  could  not,  on  any  account,  con- 
scientiously employ  it.  It  would  not  satisfy  me  to  be  told, 
that  the  language  of  one  of  the  Thirty-nine  Articles,  and 
some  of  the  language  found  in  the  Book  of  Homihes,  bears 
a  different  aspect.  This  is,  no  doubt,  true.  Still  this  does 
not  remove  or  alter  the  language  of  the  baptismal  service. 
There  it  stands,  a  distress  and  a  snare  to  thousands  of  good 


110  ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 

men,  who  acknowledge  that  they  could  wish  it  otherwise, 
but  dare  not  modify  it  in  the  smallest  jot  or  tittle.*  Had  I 
no  other  objection  to  ministering  in  the  church  of  England, 
or  in  the  corresponding  denomination  in  this  country — this 
part  of  ihe  Liturgy  would  alone  be  an  insurmountable  one. 
I  could  not  consent  continually  to  employ  language,  which, 
however  explained  or  counteracted,  is  so  directly  adapted  to 
deceive  in  a  most  vital  point  of  practical  religion.  I  could 
not  allow  myself  to  sanction  by  adoption  and  use,  language 
which,  however  explained  and  counteracted  in  my  own  min- 
istry, I  knew  to  be  presented  and  urged  by  many  around  me 
in  its  literal  import,  and  declared  to  be  the  only  true  doctrine 
of  the  church. 

As  to  the  plea,  that  a  Liturgy  must  necessarily  be  con- 
structed upon  the  principle  that  all  who  come  to  its  offices 
must  be  presumed  to  be  sincere,  and  be  solemnly  assured,  in 
the  name  of  God,  that  they  are  so,  nothing  can  be  more  de- 
lusive. Cannot  scriptural  truth  be  as  plainly  stated,  and  as 
Avisely  guarded  in  a  liturgical  composition  as  in  any  other  ? 
Oar  Methodist  brethren  have  a  prescribed  form  for  baptism  ; 
and  so  far  as  I  recollect  its  language,  they  have  succeeded, 
without  apparent  difficulty,  in  making  it  at  once  instructive, 
solemn,  appropriate,  and  unexceptionable.  And  I  have  heard 
Presbyterian  ministers  a  thousand  times  tell  their  hearers, 
with  as  much  distinctness  in  administering  sacraments,  as 'in 
ordinary  preaching,  that  "  the  sacraments  become  effectual  to 
salvation,  not  from  any  virtue  in  them,  or  in  him  that  doth 
administer  them  ;  but  only  by  the  blessing  of  Christ,  and 
the  working  of  his  Spirit  in  them  that  by  faith  receive  them^ 

But  it  may  be  asked,  what  kind  or  degree  of  efficacy  do 
Presbyterians  consider  as  connected  with  baptism  ?  Do  they 
suppose  that  there  is  any  beneficial  influence,  physical  or 
moral,  in  all  cases,  connected  with  the  due  administration  of 
this  sacrament  ?  I  answer,  none  at  all.  They  suppose  that 
the  washing  with  water  in  this  ordinance  is  an  emblem  and  a 
sign  of  precious  benefits  ;  that  it  holds  forth  certain  great 
truths,  which  are  the  glory  of  the  Christian  covenant,  and 
the  joy  of  the  Christians's  heart ;  that  it  is  a  seal  affixed  by 
God  to  his  covenant  with  his  people,  whereby  he  certifies 

*  An  evangelical  and  deeply  conscientious  minister  of  the  Episcopal 
church,  who,  after  struggling  for  some  time  with  the  most  distressing 
scruples,  as  to  this  very  feature  in  the  baptismal  service,  ventured  to 
alter  a  few  words,  was  forthwith  given  to  understand,  that  such  liber- 
ties  would  not  be  tolerated,  and  was  soon  constrained  to  withdraw  from 
the  Episcopal  communion. 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES.  Ill 

his  purposes  of  grace,  and  pledges  his  blessing  to  all  who  re- 
ceive it  with  a  living  faith ;  nay,  that  it  is  the  seal  of  valuable 
outward  privileges,  even  to  those  who  are  not  then,  or  at 
any  other  time,  "  born  of  the  Spirit;"  that,  as  a  solemn  rite 
appointed  by  Christ,  it  is  adapted  to  make  a  solemn  impres- 
sion on  the  serious  mind  ;  but  that  v/hen  it  is  administered  to 
the  persons,  or  the  offspring  of  those  who  are  entirely  desti- 
tute of  faith,  there  is  no  pledge  or  certainty  that  it  will  be 
accompanied  with  any  blessing.  They  receive  the  ivater, 
but  not  the  Spirit.  They  are  engrafted  into  the  visible 
church,  but  not  into  the  spiritual  body  of  Christ,  and  are, 
after  baptism,  just  as  they  were  before,  like  Simon  the 
Sorcerer,  "in  the  gall  of  bitterness  and  in  the  bond  of 
iniquity." 


(Note  C.) 
sponsors  in  baptism. 

It  is  well  known  that  the  Presbyterian  church  differs  from 
the  Episcopal  in  regard  to  the  subject  announced  at  the  head 
of  this  note.  We  differ  in  two  respects.  First,  in  not  re- 
quiring or  encourag 'ng  the  appearance  of  any  other  sponsors, 
in  the  baptism  of  children,  than  the  parents,  when  they  are 
living  and  qualified  to  present  themselves  in  this  character : 
and  secondly,  in  not  requiring,  or  even  admitting,  any  god- 
fathers or  godmothers  at  all  in  cases  of  adult  bapUsm.  My 
object  in  the  remarks  which  I  am  about  to  make  on  this  sub- 
ject, is,  not  to  impugn  either  the  principles  or  practice  of  our 
Episcopal  brethren;  but  simply  to  state,  for  the  instruction 
of  the  members  of  our  own  church,  why  we  cannot  think  or 
act  with  them  in  relation  to  this  matter. 

It  is  curious  to  observe  the  several  steps  by  which  the  use 
of  sponsors,  as  now  established  in  the  Romish  and  some 
Protestant  churches,  reached  its  present  form.  Within  the 
first  five  or  six  hundred  years  after  Christ,  there  is  no  evi- 
dence that  children  were  ever  presented  for  baptism  by  any 
other  persons  than  their  parents,  provided  those  parents 
were  living,  and  were  professing  Christians.  When  some 
persons  in  the  time  of  Augustine,  who  flourished  toward  the 
close  of  the  fourth,  and  beginning  of  the  fifth  century,  con- 
tended that  it  was  not  lawful,  in  any  case,  for  any  excepting 
their  natural  parents  to  offer  children  in  baptism ;  that  learned 


112 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 


and  pious  father  opposed  them,  and  gave  it  as  his  opinion, 
that  in  extraordinary  cases,  as,  for  example,  when  the 
parents  were  dead;  when  they  were  not  professing  Chris- 
tians ;  when  they  cruelly  forsook  and  exposed  their  off- 
spring; and  when  masters  had  young  slaves  committed  to 
their  charge,  in  these  cases,  (and  the  pious  Father  mentions 
no  others,)  he  maintains  that  any  professing  Christians,  who 
should  be  willing  to  undertake  the  benevolent  charge,  might 
with  propriety,  take  these  children,  offer  them  in  baptism, 
and  become  responsible  for  their  Christian  education.  This, 
every  one  will  perceive,  is  in  strict  conformity  with  the 
principles  maintained  in  the  foregoing  essay,  and  with  the 
doctrine  and  habits  of  the  Presbyterian  church. 

The  learned  Bingham,  an  Episcopal  divine  of  great  learn- 
ing, seems  to  have  taken  unwearied  pains,  in  his  "  Ecclesi- 
astical Antiquities,"  to  collect  every  scrap  of  testimony  with- 
in his  reach,  in  favour  of  the  early  origin  of  sponsors.  But 
he  utterly  fails  of  producing  even  plausible  evidence  to  that 
amount;  and  at  length  candidly  acknowledges  that  in  the 
early  ages,  parents  were,  in  all  ordinary  cases,  the  presentors 
and  sureties  for  their  own  children ;  and  that  children  were 
presented  by  others  only  in  extraordinary  cases,  such  as 
those  already  alluded  to.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  some 
writers,  more  sanguine  than  discriminating,  have  quoted 
Dionysius,  Tertullian,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  as  affording 
countenance  to  the  use  of  sponsors  in  early  times.  Not  one 
of  those  writers,  however,  has  written  a  sentence  which 
favours  the  use  of  any  other  sponsors  than  parents,  when 
they  were  in  life,  and  of  a  proper  character  to  offer  their 
children  for  the  sacramental  sealin  question.  Even  Diony- 
sius, whose  language  has,  at  first  view,  some  appearance  of 
favouring  such  sponsors ;  yet,  when  carefully  examined, 
will  be  found  to  speak  only  of  sponsors  who  undertook  to 
train  up  in  the  Christian  religion  some  of  the  children  of  Pa- 
gans, who  were  delivered,  for  this  purpose,  into  the  hands  of 
these  benevolent  sureties,  by  their  unbelieving  parents.  But 
this,  surely,  is  not  inconsistent  with  what  has  been  said. 
And,  after  all,  the  writings  of  this  very  Dionysius  are  given 
up  by  the  learned  Wall,  and  by  the  still  more  learned  and 
illustrious  Archbishop  Usher,  as  a  "gross  and  impudent 
forgery,"  unworthy  of  the  least  credit. 

It  was  not  until  the  council  of  Mentz,  in  the  ninth  century, 
that  the  church  of  Rome  forbade  the  appearance  of  parents 
as  sponsors  for  their  own  children,  and  required  that  this 
service  be  surrendered  to  other  hands. 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES.  113 

Mention  is  made,  by  Cyril,  in  the  ffth  century,  and  by 
Fiilgentius  in  the  sixth,  of  sponsors  in  some  peculiar  cases 
oi  adult  baptism.  When  adults,  about  to  be  baptized,  were 
dumb,  or  under  the  power  of  delirium,  through  disease,  and 
of  course  unable  to  speak  for  themselves,  or  to  make  the 
usual  profession ;  in  such  cases  it  was  customary  for  some 
friend  or  friends  to  answer  for  them,  and  to  bear  testimony  to 
their  good  character,  and  to  the  fact  of  their  having  before 
expressed  a  desire  to  be  baptized.  For  this,  there  was,  un 
doubtedly,  some  reason;  and  the  same  thing  might,  with 
propriety,  in  conceivable  circumstances  be  done  now.  From 
this,  however,  there  was  a  transition  soon  made  to  the  use  of 
sponsors  in  all  cases  of  adult  baptism.  This  latter,  how- 
ever, was  upon  a  diflf'erent  principle  from  the  former.  When 
adults  had  the  gifts  of  speech  and  reason,  and  v/ere  able  to 
answer  for  themselves,  the  sponsors  provided  for  such,  never 
answered  or  professed  for  them.  This  was  invariably  done 
by  the  adult  himself.  Their  only  business,  as  it  would  ap- 
pear, was  to  be  a  kind  of  curators  or  guardians  of  the  spiritu- 
al life  of  the  persons  baptized.  This  office  was  generally 
fulfilled,  in  each  church,  by  the  deacons  when  adult  males 
were  baptized ;  and  by  the  deaconesses  when  females  came 
forward  to  receive  this  ordinance. 

Among  the  pious  Waldenses  and  Albigenses,  in  the  middle 
ages,  no  other  sponsors  than  parents  seem  to  have  been  in 
common  use.  In  one  of  their  catechisms,  as  preserved  by 
Perrin,  and  Morland,  they  ask,  "  By  whom  ought  children 
to  be  presented  in  baptism?"  Answer,  "By  their  parents, 
or  by  any  others  who  may  be  inspired  with  this  charity  ;" 
which  is  evidently  intended  to  mean,  as  other  documents  re- 
specting them  show,  that  where  the  parents  were  dead,  or 
absent,  or  could  not  act,  other  pious  professors  of  rehgion 
might  take  their  places. 

According  to  one  of  the  canons  of  the  church  of  England, 
"  parents  are  not  to  be  urged  to  be  present  when  their  chil- 
dren are  baptized,  nor  to  be  permitted  to  stand  as  sponsors 
for  their  own  children."  In  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church 
in  this  country,  parents  "  shall  be  admitted  as  sponsors  if  it 
be  desired."  But  in  both  countries  it  is  required  that  there  be 
godfathers  and  godmothers  for  all  adults,  as  well  as  for  infants 

The  baptismal  service  of  the  Methodist  church  in  the  United 
States,  for  infants,  does  not  recognise  the  use  of  any  sponsors 
at  all,  excepting  the  parents,  or  whatever  other  "friends" 
may  present  them. 

It  is  plain  then,  that  the  early  history  of  the  church,  as 
26  11 


114  ADDITIONAL    NOTES, 

well  as  the  word  of  God,  abundantly  sustains  the  doctrine 
and  practice  of  the  Presbyterian  church  in  this  matter.  We 
maintain,  that  as  the  right  of  the  children  of  believers  to  bap- 
tism, flows  from  the  membership  and  faith  of  their  parents 
according  to  the  flesh ;  so  those  parents,  if  living,  are  the 
only  proper  persons  to  present  them  for  the  reception  of  this 
covenant  seal.  If,  however,  their  proper  parents,  on  any 
account,  cannot  do  this,  they  may,  upon  our  principles,  with 
propriety,  be  presented  by  any  professed  believers,  who, 
quoad  hoc,  adopt  them  as  their  children,  and  are  willing  to 
engage,  as  parents,  to  "  bring  them  up  in  the  nurture  and  ad- 
monition of  the  Lord." 

If,  indeed,  nothing  else  were  contended  for  in  this  case, 
than  that,  when  believing  parents  have  pious  and  peculiar 
friends  who  are  willing  to  unite  with  them  in  engagements  to 
educate  their  children  in  the  true  religion,  such  friends  might 
be  permitted  to  stand  with  them ;  there  might  not  be  so  much 
to  condemn.  Even  then  the  solemn  question  might  be  asked; 
*'  Who  hath  required  this  at  your  hands  ?"  But  when  the 
system  is,  to  set  aside  parents ;  to  require  that  others  take 
their  places,  and  make  engagements  which  they  alone,  for 
the  most  part,  are  qualified  to  make;  and  when,  in  pursu- 
ance of  this  system,  thousands  are  daily  making  engagements 
which  they  never  thinlc  of  fulfilling,  and  in  most  cases,  no- 
toriously have  it  not  in  their  power  to  fulfil,  and,  indeed,  feel 
no  special  obligation  to  fulfil ;  we  are  constrained  to  regard 
it  as  a  human  invention,  having  no  waiTant  whatever,  either, 
from  the  word  of  God  or  primitive  usage ;  and  as  adapted, 
on  a  variety  of  accounts,  to  generate  evil,  much  evil,  rather 
than  good. 


(Note  D.) 

confirmation. 

In  the  apostolic  church,  there  was  no  such  rite  as  that 
which  under  this  name  has  been  long  established  m  the 
Romish  communion  as  a  sacrament,  and  adopted  in  some 
Protestant  churches  as  a  solemnity,  in  their  view,  if  not  com- 
manded, yet  as  both  expressive  and  edifying.  It  is  not  in- 
tended in  this  note  to  record  a  sentence  condemnatory  of 
those  who  think  proper  to  employ  the  rite  in  question  :  but 
only  to  state  "with  brevity  some  of  the  reasons  why  the 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES.  115 

fathers  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  thought  proper  to  ex- 
clude it  from  their  ritual;  and  why  their  sons,  to  the  present 
hour,  have  persisted  in  the  same  course. 

1.  We  find  no  foundation  for  this  rite  in  the  word  of  God. 
Indeed  our  Episcopal  brethren,  and  other  Protestants  who 
employ  it,  do  not  pretend  to  find  any  direct  warrant  for  it  in 
Scripture.  All  they  have  to  allege,  which  bears  the  least  re- 
semblance to  any  such  practice,  is  the  statement  recorded  in 
Acts  viii.  14 — 17  :  *'  Now  when  the  apostles,  which  were  at 
Jerusalem,  heard  that  Samaria  had  received  the  word  of  God, 
they  sent  unto  them  Peter  and  John,  who  when  they  were 
come  down,  prayed  for  them,  that  they  might  receive  the 
Holy  Ghost.  (For  as  yet  he  had  fallen  upon  none  of  them  ; 
only  they  were  baptized  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus). 
Then  laid  they  their  hands  on  them,  and  they  received  the 
Holy  Ghost."  That  there  is  here  a  reference  to  the  extraor- 
dinary or  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  these 
conferred  by  extraordinary  officers,  is  so  perfectly  apparent, 
that  it  is  no  wonder  the  advocates  of  Confirmation  do  not 
press  it  as  proof  of  their  point.  The  only  wonder  is,  that 
they  ever  mention  it  as  aff'ording  the  most  remote  counte- 
nance to  their  practice.  The  diligent  reader  of  Scripture 
will  find  four  kinds,  or  occasions  of  laying  on  hands  re- 
counted in  the  New  Testament.  The  first,  by  Christ  him- 
self, to  express  an  authoritative  benediction,  Matt.  xix.  Mark 
X.  16  ;  the  second,  in  the  healing  of  diseases,  Mark  xvi.  18, 
Acts  xxviii,  8  ;  the  third,  in  conferring  the  extraordinary  gifts 
of  the  Spirit,  Acts  viii.  17,  xix.  6 ;  and  the  fourth,  in  setting 
apart  persons  to  sacred  office.  Acts  vi.  6.  xiii.  3.  1  Tim.  iv. 
14.  The  venerable  Dr.  Oweriy  in  his  commentary  on  Heb. 
vi.  2,  expresses  the  opinion,  that  the  laying  on  of  hands 
there  spoken  of,  is  to  be  considered  as  belonging  to  the  third 
class  of  cases,  and,  of  course,  as  referring  to  the  extraordi- 
nary gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Others  have  supposed  that  it 
rather  belongs  to  the  fourth  example  above  enumerated,  and 
therefore  applies  to  the  ordination  of  ministers.  But  there  is 
not  a  syllable  or  hint  in  the  whole  New  Testament  which 
looks  like  such  a  laying  on  of  hands  as  that  for  which  the 
advocates  of  Confirmation  contend. 

2.  Quite  as  httle  support  for  Confirmation  can  be  found  in 
the  purest  and  best  periods  of  uninspired  antiquity.  Towards 
the  close  of  the  second  century,  several  uncommanded  and 
superstitious  additions  had  been  made  to  the  ordinance  of 
baptism.  Among  these  were  anointing  with  oil,  in  avowed 
imitation  of  the  Jewish  manner  of  consecration ;  administer 


116  ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 

ing  to  the  baptized  individual  a  mixture  of  milk  and  honey 
as  the  symbol  of  his  childhood  in  a  new  life,  and  as  a  pledge 
of  that  heavenly  Canaan,  with  all  its  advantages  and  happi- 
ness, to  which  the  hopes  of  the  baptized  were  directed ;  the 
laying  on  of  the  hands  of  the  minister  officiating  in  baptism, 
for  imparting  the  Holy  Spirit ;  to  all  which  may  be  added, 
that  immediately  after  the  close  of  this  century,  we  find  the 
practice  of  exorcism  introduced  as  a  preliminary  to  baptism, 
and  as  a  means  of  expelling  all  evil  spirits  from  the  candidate 
for  this  ordinance.  These  superstitious  additions  were  made 
to  succeed  each  other  in  the  following  order ;  exorcism,  con- 
fession ;  renunciation ;  baptism ;  chrismation,  or  anointing 
with  oil,  which  was  done  in  the  form  of  a  cross ;  and  finally, 
the  laying  on  of  hands,  or  confirmation,  which  immediately 
followed  the  anointing  with  oil,  and  the  administration  of  the 
simple  element  above  mentioned.  "  As  soon  as  we  are  bap- 
tized," says  Tertullian,  "  we  are  anointed  with  the  blessed 
unction."  And  he  adds,  "  This  miction  is  according  to  the 
Jewish  dispensation,  wherein  the  high  priest  was  anointed 
with  oil  out  of  a  horn."  The  laying  on  of  hands,  or  con- 
firmation, immediately  followed  the  unction.  "  As  soon  as 
we  come  from  the  baptismal  laver,"  says  Tertullian,  "  We 
are  anointed,  and  then  hands  are  imposed."  This  was  con- 
sidered as  essential  to  the  completion  of  the  ordinance. 
"  We  do  not  receive  the  Holy  Ghost,"  says  the  same  father, 
"in  baptism,  but  being  purified  by  the  water,  we  are  pre- 
pared for  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  the 
soul  is  illuminated  by  the  Spirit."  The  exorcism,  then, 
the  anointing  with  oil,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  the  imposition 
of  hands  for  conveying  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  administra- 
tion of  milk  and  honey  to  the  candidate,  were  all  human  ad- 
ditions to  baptism,  which  came  in  about  the  same  time,  and 
ought,  in  our  opinion,  to  be  regarded  very  much  in  the  same 
light  with  a  great  variety  of  other  additions  to  the  institutions 
of  Christ,  which,  though  well  meant,  and  not  destitute  of 
expressiveness,  are  yet  wholly  unauthorized  by  the  King  and 
Head  of  the  Church. 

3.  When  the  practice  of  the  laying  on  of  hands,  as  an 
ordinary  part  of  the  baptismal  service,  was  added,  by  human 
invention,  to  that  ordinance,  it  always  immediately  followed 
the  application  of  water,  and  the  anointing  with  oil.  "  As 
soon  as  we  come  from  the  baptismal  laver,"  says  Tertullian 
"  we  are  anointed,  and  then  hands  are  laid  on."  And  it  is 
further  acknowledged  by  aU,  that  every  one  who  was  com- 
petent to  baptize,  was  equally  competent  to  lay  on  hands. 


Al>DITIONAL    NOTES.  117 

The  two  things  always  went  together;  or  rather  formed 
parts  of  the  baptismal  ordinance,  which  was  not  thought  to 
be  consummated  without  the  imposition  of  hands  by  him  who 
had  applied  the  water  and  the  unction.  And  this  continued 
to  be  the  case,  throughout  the  greater  part  of  the  church,  for 
the  first  three  hundred  years.  Then  the  term  bishop  signi- 
fied the  pastor  or  overseer  of  a  flock  or  congregation.  Every 
pastor  was  a  bishop,  as  had  been  the  case  in  apostolic  times. 
And  then,  in  ordinary  cases,  none  but  the  bishop  or  pastor 
of  each  church,  administered  baptism.  Of  course,  he  only 
laid  on  hands.  But  afterwards,  in  the  progress  of  corruption, 
when  Prelacy  was  gradually  brought  in,  it  became  custom- 
ary, for  the  sake  of  doing  greater  honour  to  the  prelates, 
to  reserve  this  imposition  of  hands  to  them,  as  a  part  of 
their  official  prerogative.  Jerome  (Dialog.  Adv.  Lucifer,) 
expressly  declares,  that  the  committing  this  benediction 
wholly  to  the  bishops,  was  done  "  rather  in  honour  of  the 
priesthood,  than  from  necessity  imposed  by  any  law." 
Even  now,  throughout  the  Greek  Church,  this  rite  is  admin- 
istered, for  the  most  part,  in  close  connection  with  baptism, 
and  is  dispensed  by  any  priest  who  is  empowered  to  baptize. 
In  like  manner,  in  the  Lutheran  and  other  German  churches, 
in  which  confirmation  is  retained,  it  is  administered  by  every 
pastor.  Still  even  when  confined  to  prelates,  this  imposi- 
tion of  hands  was  not,  in  ordinary  cases,  long  separated  from 
the  baptism  :  for  the  children  were  commonly  carried  to 
the  bishop  to  have  his  hands  laid  upon  them  as  soon  as  con- 
venient. After  a  while,  however,  it  became  customary  to 
separate  the  two  things  much  more  widely.  Confirmation, 
or  the  laying  on  of  the  bishop's  hands,  began  to  be  post- 
poned for  a  number  of  years,  according  to  circumstances  ; 
until,  at  length,  it  was  often  left  till  the  arrival  of  adult  age, 
and  even,  in  some  cases,  till  the  decline  of  life.  All  these 
progressive  steps  evidently  ma]i»ied  a  mere  human  invention, 
for  which  there  is  no  divine  appointment  or  warrant  what- 
ever. 

4.  The  rite  of  confirmation  is  superfluous.  As  it  was 
plainly  a  human  invention,  so  it  is  unnecessary,  and  answers 
no  purpose  which  is  not  quite  as  well,  to  say  the  least,  pro- 
vided for  in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  which  rejects  it.  It 
is  said  to  be  desirable  that  there  should  be  some  transaction 
or  solemnity  by  which  young  people  who  have  been  bap- 
tized in  their  infancy,  may  be  called  to  recognise  their  reli- 
gious obligations,  and,  as  it  were,  to  take  upon  themselves 
the  profession  and  the  vows  made  on  their  behalf  in  bap- 
26*  11* 


118  ADDITIONAL    NOTES. 

tism  ?  Granted.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  such  a  solem- 
nity is  both  reasonable  in  itself,  and  edifying  in  its  tendency. 
But  have  we  not  just  such  a  solemnity  in  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per; an  ordinance  divinely  instituted;  an  ordinance  on 
which  all  are  qualified  to  attend,  and  ought  to  attend,  who 
are  qualified  to  take  on  themselves,  in  any  scriptural  or  ra- 
tional sense,  their  baptismal  obligations;  an  ordinance,  in 
fact,  specifically  intended,  among  other  things,  to  answer 
this  very  purpose,  viz.  the  purpose  of  making  a  personal 
acknowledgment  and  profession  of  the  truth,  the  service,  and 
the  hopes  of  Christ : — have  we  not,  I  say,  in  the  Sacramen- 
tal Supper  just  such  a  solemnity  as  we  need  for  the  end  in 
(question — simple,  rational,  scriptural,  and  to  which  all  our 
children  may  come,  just  as  soon  as  they  are  prepared  in  any 
form  to  confess  Christ  before  men?  We  do  not  need  confir- 
mation, then,  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  professed  to  be 
desired.  We  have  something  better,  because  appointed  of 
God ;  quite  as  expressive  ;  more  solemn  ;  and  free  from  cer- 
tain objectionable  features  which  are  now  to  be  mentioned. 
5.  Finally;  we  reject  the  rite  of  confirmation  in  our 
Church,  because  in  addition  to  all  the  reasons  which  have 
been  mentioned,  we  consider  the  formula  prescribed  for  its 
administration  in  the  Church  of  England,  and  substantially 
adopted  by  the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country,  as  liable 
to  the  most  serious  objections.  We  do  not  think  it  a  duty 
in  any  form,  to  practise  a  rite  which  the  Saviour  never  ap- 
pointed ;  but  our  repugnance  is  greatly  increased  by  the 
language  with  which  the  rite  in  question  is  administered  by 
those  who  employ  it.  In  the  "  Order  of  Confirmation,"  as 
prescribed  and  used  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
the  United  States,  the  following  language  occurs.  Before 
the  act  of  laying  on  hands,  the  officiating  bishop,  in  his 
prayer  repeats  the  following  language  ;  "  Almighty  and  ever 
living  God,  who  hast  vouchsafed  to  regenerate  these  thy 
servants,  by  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  hast  given 
unto  them  forgiveness  of  all  their  sins,"  &;c.  &;c.  And  again, 
in  another  prayer,  after  the  act  of  confirmation  is  completed, 
he  speaks  to  the  Searcher  of  hearts  thus — "We  make  our 
humble  supplications  unto  thee  for  these  thy  servants,  upon 
whom,  after  the  example  of  thy  holy  apostles,  we  have  now 
laid  our  hands  ;  to  certify  them  by  this  sign  of  thy  favour 
and  gracious  goodness  towards  them,"  &;c.  And  also,  in 
the  act  of  laying  on  hands,  assuming  that  all  who  are  kneel- 
ing before  him  already  have  the  holy  sanctifying  spirit  of 
Christ,  he  prays  that  they  "  may  all  daily  increase  in  this 
Holy  Spirit  more  and  more." 


ADDITIONAL   NOTES.  119 

Such  is  the  language  addressed  to  large  circles  of  young 
people  of  both  sexes,  many  of  whom  there  is  every  reason 
to  fear,  are  very  far  from  having  been  "  born  of  the  Spirit," 
in  the  Bible  sense  of  that  phrase ;  nay,  some  of  whom  mani- 
fest so  little  seriousness,  that  any  pastor  of  enlightened  piety 
would  be  pained  to  see  them  at  a  communion  table  ;  yet  the 
bishop  pronounces  them  all — and  he  appeals  to  heaven  for 
the  truth  of  his  sentence — he  pronounces  them  all  regene- 
rate, not  only  by  vjater,  but  also  by  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  cer- 
tifies to  them,  in  the  name  of  God,  that  they  are  objects  of 
the  divine  ^^favour  ^^^  and  declares  that,  being  already  in  a 
state  of  grace  and  favour  with  God,  they  are  called  to  "  grow 
in  grace ;"  to  "  increase  in  the  Holy  Spirit  more  and  more," 

There  are  many  who  have  long  regarded,  and  who  now 
regard  this  language  not  only  with  regret,  but  with  shudder- 
ing, as  adapted  to  cherish  false  hopes,  nay,  to  deceive  and 
destroy  souls  by  wholesale.  I  must  again  say,  that  if  there 
were  no  other  obstacle  to  my  consenting  to  minister  in  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  church,  this  alone  would  be  an  insur- 
mountable one.  For  it  must  come  home  to  the  conscience 
and  the  feelings,  not  of  the  bishop  only,  but  of  every  pastor 
in  that  church  who  has,  from  time  to  time,  a  circle  of  belo- 
ved youth  to  present  for  confirmation.  It  is  vain  to  say,  that 
the  church  presumes  that  all  who  come  are  sincere,  and  of 
course  born  of  the  Spirit,  and  in  a  state  of  favour  with  God. 
This  is  the  very  point  of  our  objection.  She  so  presumes, 
and  undertakes  to  "  certify''^  them  of  it.  Presbyterian  min- 
isters do  not,  dare  not,  use  such  language.  They  do  not 
and  dare  not,  undertake  to  "  certify"  to  any  number  of  the 
most  mature  and  exemplary  communicants  that  ever  gathered 
round  a  sacramental  table,  that  they  are  all  in  a  state  of  grace 
and  salvation,  and  that  they  have  nothing  to  do  but  to  "  follow 
on,"  and  "  increase  in  the  Holy  Spirit."  Nor  is  it  a  suffi- 
cient answer,  I  repeat,  to  say,  that  a  liturgy,  being  a  fixed 
composition,  cannot  be  so  constructed  as  to  discriminate 
between  different  characters.  This  is  denied.  Every  en- 
lightened and  faithful  minister  of  whatever  denomination, 
who  is  at  liberty  to  employ  such  language  as  he  approves, 
knows  how  to  express  himself,  both  in  prayer  and  preach- 
ing, in  discriminating  and  expressive  terms ;  and  how  to 
avoid  modes  of  expression  adapted  to  deceive  and  betray  un- 
wary souls.  It  is  surely  not  impracticable  to  address  the 
largest  and  most  promiscuous  assembly  in  a  manner  Avhich 
though  not  adapted  to  the  precise  case  of  every  individual 
shall  be  at  least  free  from  error,  free  from  every  thing  of  a 


120  ADDITIONAL  NOTES. 

deceptive  and  ensnaring  character.  Our  Methodist  breth 
ren,  it  was  before  remarked,  have  a  prescribed  liturgical 
form  for  baptism ;  which  they  have  rendered  sufficiently- 
discriminating,  and  at  the  same  time  unexceptionably  safe. 
And,  what  is  not  unworthy  of  notice  in  this  place,  though 
the  liturgy  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  church  is  evidently 
the  model  which,  to  a  certain  extent,  they  have  kept  before 
them  in  constructing  their  own,  they  have  wisely  discarded 
altogether  the  ceremony  of  confirmation  from  their  ritual. 

The  advocates  of  confirmation,  as  a  separate  ecclesiastical 
rite,  seldom  fail  of  quoting  Calvin  as  expressing  an  opinion 
decisively  in  favour  of  it.  This  is  doing  great  injustice  to 
that  illustrious  man.  Calvin  directly  and  warmly  opposes 
the  idea  of  confirmation  being  considered  as  a  distinct  ordi- 
nance, claiming  divine  authority  in  the  Church  of  God. 
This  he  reprobates  ;  and  especially  the  practice  of  confining 
the  administration  of  it  to  prelates ;  but  adds,  "  that  he  has 
no  objection  to  parents  bringing  their  children  to  their  minis- 
ter, at  the  close  of  childhood,  or  the  commencement  of  ado- 
lescence, to  be  examined  according  to  the  catechism  in  com- 
mon use,  and  then,  for  the  sake  of  greater  dignity  and  reve- 
rence, closing  the  ceremony  by  the  imposition,  of  hands. 
"  Such  imposition  of  hands,  therefore,  says  he,  as  is  simply 
connected  with  benediction,  I  highly  approve,  and  wish  it 
were  now  restored  to  its  primitive  use,  uncorrupted  by  su- 
perstition." (Institutiones,  Lib.  iv.  cap.  xix.  §  4).  But 
what  serves  to  throw  light  on  Calvin's  real  sentiments  on 
this  whole  subject  is  that,  in  commenting  on  Acts  viii.  17,  he 
reproaches  the  Papists  for  pressing  that  passage  into  the  sup- 
port of  their  sacrament  of  confirmation  ;  and  not  only  asserts, 
but  proves,  that  the  laying  on  of  hands  there  spoken  of,  re- 
lates, not  at  all  to  the  ordinary  and  sanctifying,  but  to  the 
miraculous  gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  have  long  since 
ceased  in  the  church  ;  and,  of  course,  that  the  passage  in 
question  ought  never  to  be  quoted  in  favour  of  confirmation, 
or  of  any  other  permanent  rite  in  the  Christian  Church 


(Note  E.) 

vote  of  the  westminster  assembly  respecting  baptisbf. 

It  has  been  sometimes  ignorantly,  and  most  erroneously 
asserted  that  the  Wesminster  Assembly  of  divines,  in  put- 


ADDITIONAL    NOTES.  121 

ting  to  vote,  whether  baptism  should  be  performed  by  sprink- 
ling or  immersion^  carried  it  in  favour  of  sprinkling,  by  a 
majority  of  one  only.  This  is  wholly  incorrect.  The  facts 
were  these.  When  the  committee  who  had  been  charged 
with  preparing  a  "  Directory  for  the  worship  of  God," 
brought  in  their  report,  they  had  spoken  of  the  mode  of  bap- 
tism thus  :  "  It  is  lawful  and  sufficient  to  sprinkle  the  child." 
To  this  Dr.  Lightfoot,  among  others,  objected;  not  because 
he  doubted  of  the  entire  sufficiency  of  sprinkling ;  for  he  de- 
cidedly preferred  sprinkling  to  immersion  ;  but  because  he 
thought  there  was  an  impropriety  in  pronouncing  that  mode 
lawful  only,  when  no  one  present  had  any  doubts  of  its  be- 
ing so,  and  when  almost  all  preferred  it.  Others  seemed  to 
think,  that  by  saying  nothing  about  dipping,  that  mode  was 
meant  to  be  excluded,  as  not  a  lauful  mode.  This  they  did 
not  wish  to  pronounce.  When,  therefore,  the  clause,  as 
originally  reported,  was  put  to  vote,  there  were  twenty-five 
votes  in  favour  of  it,  and  twenty-four  against  it.  After  this 
vote,  a  motion  was  made  and  carried,  that  it  be  recommitted. 
The  next  day,  when  the  committee  reported,  and  when  some 
of  the  members  still  seemed  unwilling  to  exclude  all  mention 
of  dipping.  Dr.  Lightfoot  remarked,  that  to  say  that  pouring 
or  sprinkling  was  lawful,  would  be  "  all  one  as  saying,  that 
it  was  lawful  to  use  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord's  Supper." 
He,  therefore,  moved  that  the  clause  in  the  "  Directory"  re- 
specting the  mode  of  baptism,  be  expressed  thus  : 

*'  Then  the  minister  is  to  demand  the  name  of  the  child, 
which  being  told  him,  he  is  to  say  (calUng  the  child  by  his 
name) — 

"  /  baptize  thee  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the 
Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost." 

"As  he  pronounceth  these  words,  he  is  to  baptize  the 
child  with  water,  which,  for  the  manner  of  doing  it,  is  not 
only  lawful,  but  sufficient,  and  jnost  expedient  to  be,  by 
vouring  or  sprinkling  of  the  water  on  the  face  of  the  child, 
without  adding  any  other  ceremony."  This  was  carried. 
See  LightfooVs  Life,  prefixed  to  the  first  volume  of  his 
Works,  (folio  edition,)  p.  4;  compared  with  NeaWs  His- 
tory of  the  Puritans,  vol.  ii.  p.  106,  107,  compared  with  the 
Appendix,  No.  II.  (quarto  edition,)  where  the  "  Directory," 
as  finally  passed,  is  given  at  full  length. 

We  do  not  learn,  precisely,  either  from  Lightfoot's  biogra- 
pher, (who  was  no  other  than  the  indefatigable  Strype,)  or 
from  Neal,  by  what  vote  the  clause,  as  moved  by  Lightfoot 
was  finaUy  adopted;  but  Neal  expressly  tells  us,  that  "  the 
Directory  passed  the  Assembly  with  great  unanimity." 


122  ADDITIONAL   NOTES. 

From  this  statement,  it  is  evident,  that  the  question  which 
was  carried  in  the  Assembly,  by  a  majority  of  one,  was,  not 
whether  affusion  or  sprinkUng  was  a  lawful  mode  of  bap- 
tism ;  but  whether  all  mention  of  dipping,  as  one  of  the  law- 
ful modes  should  be  omitted.  This,  in  an  early  stage  of  the 
discussion,  was  carried,  by  a  majority  of  one  in  the  affirma- 
tive. But  it  would  seem  that  the  clause,  as  finally  adopted, 
which  certainly  was  far  more  decisive  in  favour  of  sprinkling 
or  affusion,  was  passed  "  with  great  unanimity. ^^  At  any 
rate,  nothing  can  be  more  evident,  than  that  the  clause  as  it 
originally  stood,  being  carried  by  one  vote  only,  and  after- 
wards, when  recommitted,  and  so  altered  as  to  be  much 
stronger  in  favour  of  sprinkling,  and  then  adopted  without 
difficulty,  the  common  statement  of  this  matter  by  our  Bap- 
tist brethren  is  an  entire  misrepresentation. 


THE  END. 


